NASA looking to build "gas" stations in space

[someone_else]

Article (the paper is linked below, first link in the text)

NASA announces program to being developing space-based refueling points

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 in 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 ground work for humans to safely reach multiple destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points and Mars.

NASA says the flight demonstration mission "will test and validate key capabilities and technologies required for future exploration elements such as large cryogenic propulsion stages and propellant depots. Today's Broad Agency Announcement solicits proposals for mission concept studies. NASA will use the results from these studies for project planning and implementation. Elements will include mission justification; technology identification and maturation; mission concept of operations; launch vehicle considerations; integrated flight system conceptual design; mission cost estimate; project schedule; concepts for government and industry partnerships; and project risk identification."

It won't be an easy task. Some of the requirements include the need to:

* demonstrate long duration, in-space storage of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen cryogenic propellants.
* demonstrate in-space transfer of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen cryogenic propellants.
* demonstrate approach for zero boil-off storage of liquid oxygen in microgravity.
* demonstrate approach for acquisition and bubble-free flow of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in microgravity.
* demonstrate approach for leak detection of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in microgravity.
* demonstrate approach for flow measurement of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in microgravity.

The benefits of space fueling depots include minimizing the propellant weight for a given mission, allowing spacecraft to refill on long journeys to Mars or other locations. Space refueling could also involve developing commercial providers to deliver on-orbit propellants and could allow on-orbit assembly, satellite servicing missions, and resupply of empty or partially filled spacecraft.

NASA says the mission cost is approximately $200 million. Higher cost options may be considered if there is a substantial increase in benefit, but the mission cost shall not exceed $300 million. Also, lower cost options may be proposed if there is substantial decrease in mission cost with modest decrease in benefits, NASA stated.

So, we'll finally see if propellant depots can spank Big Dumb Rockets.
Something to be happy about?
I think it is.

[dragon]

A nice step hopefully it works.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know they proposed doing this before The big Moon push?
If they had done this instead of dump everything into the moon, we might be to mars by now.

[Keevan_Colton]

If you read the technical details it's all pretty simple in principle. The real trick will be with the goal listed of gathering the fuel out there. Essentially it's not so much a gas station in space as a refinery in space.

[Sarevok]

Speaking of space refinery where would they get the input materials from ?

The moon does not have much in the way of volatiles. Nobody knows in what form the legendary moon ice exists in. For all we know it could be grains of ice particles sprinkled with the lunar dust. The idea of finding frozen lake surface at bottom of a crater is unlikely to be true. So gathering volatiles from the moon at the moment does not seem a very easy task.

Most of the volatiles in the solar system that can used as fuel or propellant lie in the asteroid belt or beyond. We would probably have to set camp on a comet or on a suitably selected asteroid.

[Knife]

Yay, infrastructure. Now that's a real step forward.

[dragon]

Speaking of space refinery where would they get the input materials from ?

The moon does not have much in the way of volatiles. Nobody knows in what form the legendary moon ice exists in. For all we know it could be grains of ice particles sprinkled with the lunar dust. The idea of finding frozen lake surface at bottom of a crater is unlikely to be true. So gathering volatiles from the moon at the moment does not seem a very easy task.

Most of the volatiles in the solar system that can used as fuel or propellant lie in the asteroid belt or beyond. We would probably have to set camp on a comet or on a suitably selected asteroid.

No but what the moon does have in abundance is Helium 3 which can be used once they figure out a safe way to have fusion rockets.

[Skgoa]

Didn't want to start a new thread, so:

[Broomstick]

You know they proposed doing this before The big Moon push?
If they had done this instead of dump everything into the moon, we might be to mars by now.

Or... we might not.

Going to Mars involves all sorts of problems beyond just propellants and fueling. I mean, for a quick jaunt to the Moon you can get people to eat sludge in a tube and shit in a plastic bag for a week or two, but no one sane is going to endure several months to a couple years of that. Then there's the problem of either hauling along immense quantities of supplies or finding a way to grow your own food, recycle the water, and purify the air en route. It might have taken just as long to figure all that out if we'd gone the "gas depot" route to Mars than doing the Moon shot.

A better argument would be that we'd have a Moon base by now, or orbital habitations and tourism by now if we'd done it the other way. Yes, yes, I know, a Moon base has limited utility, but it would be a test bed for setting up a self-sufficient habitat on another world while doing things like astronomy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or... we might not.

Going to Mars involves all sorts of problems beyond just propellants and fueling. I mean, for a quick jaunt to the Moon you can get people to eat sludge in a tube and shit in a plastic bag for a week or two, but no one sane is going to endure several months to a couple years of that.

We've had people in space for months at a time before with the space stations haven't we? So why the hell not to Mars?

[Sarevok]

Going to Mars involves all sorts of problems beyond just propellants and fueling. I mean, for a quick jaunt to the Moon you can get people to eat sludge in a tube and shit in a plastic bag for a week or two, but no one sane is going to endure several months to a couple years of that. Then there's the problem of either hauling along immense quantities of supplies or finding a way to grow your own food, recycle the water, and purify the air en route. It might have taken just as long to figure all that out if we'd gone the "gas depot" route to Mars than doing the Moon shot.

Well technically fueling and propellant IS what is holding back manned space. If we could refuel in space for cheap than big spaceships not lunike science fiction do become a possibility. Traveling from planet to planet on a tiny throwaway capsule indeed sucks. We need proper interplanetary spacecraft.

[Chirios]

YEAH!!!!

I do love space programs. Especially news that they're trying something new and innovative. Any of the experts on the board have any predictions on what this program will be used for?

[Crossroads Inc.]

My Dad actually wrote a rather good article outlaying how the push from making lots of small cheap rockets that could be used for a variety of uses (such as getting fuel into space) to pushing for BIG rockets for the Apollo program, actually ended up hurting space exploration. Instead of refining launch vehicles to get things into orbit, we pushed the limits of science at the time to get something to the moon. now thats not a BAD thing, it pushed the limits on many fields of science. The downside is that once we got to the moon, all effort dried up, we had "done it" and there was not much point of doing more. Had we focused more on just getting items into orbit, we could have gone to the moon easier (albeit more slowly) by assemble rockets in space and launching them, instead of having to make something to go FROM Earth to space first.

[Sarevok]

Yeah. Using launch vehicles themselves to travel interplanetary distances is not a good idea in long term.

Had we focused more on just getting items into orbit, we could have gone to the moon easier (albeit more slowly) by assemble rockets in space and launching them, instead of having to make something to go FROM Earth to space first.

Indeed.

This is why I laugh at Mars Society and other MARS NAOW!! advocates who would throw space infrastructure projects under the bus, if it meant landing a man on Mars in their lifetime.

[Chirios]

Just how much would this reduce costs by anyway? If it still costs tens of thousands of dollars then it would make it useful for scientific research, but not very useful for commercial applications.

[Sarevok]

Without fuel production in space cost savings are going to be marginal.

It's a start though. Since a worldwide paradigm shift towards space colonzation is unlikely space infrastructure development has to turtle along at glacial pace. It sucks but beats not building anything at all.

[Chirios]

Without fuel production in space cost savings are going to be marginal.

It's a start though. Since a worldwide paradigm shift towards space colonzation is unlikely space infrastructure development has to turtle along at glacial pace. It sucks but beats not building anything at all.

Is fuel production in space even possible?

[Sarevok]

Sure it is. Water for instance can be cracked to produce rocket fuel. And water happens to be quite common once you go into the outer solar system.

[Broomstick]

Or... we might not.

Going to Mars involves all sorts of problems beyond just propellants and fueling. I mean, for a quick jaunt to the Moon you can get people to eat sludge in a tube and shit in a plastic bag for a week or two, but no one sane is going to endure several months to a couple years of that.

We've had people in space for months at a time before with the space stations haven't we? So why the hell not to Mars?

Sure - once we developed a workable zero-g toilet and a means to shower/clean oneself in space. ALL the Moon shots meant the astronauts were literally shitting into plastic bags. In fact, the Apollo shit-bags are still kept on space vehicles as back up in case the toilet stops working. But the thing is, if someone is in orbit and gets into trouble there is a chance of either resupply or return to Earth - the international space station, for example, keeps "life boat" capsules ready to go, just in case. Thank Og we haven't had to use those lifeboats due to a problem on the various space stations but the option is at least there.

When you go to Mars there is no resupply, no rescue, and no lifeboat.

Sure, we've had people in space for a month, for over a year - but until we can do that reliably we can't ethically (in my opinion) ask anyone to go to Mars. And even then, the space stations had regular resupply from Earth. NO ONE has lived self-sufficiently in space for even half the length of time it would take to get to Mars with current technology. Until we can have people living completely independent of resupply off Earth for two years going to Mars looks more like a suicide mission than a viable expedition. I don't doubt you could find some people willing to take a one-way trip, but that won't help earn support from the rest of humanity.

I know a lot of the people-in-space work since Apollo has been poo-poo'ed as endlessly recursive study of the same thing, but quite a bit of it was important. So we go to Mars, keeping everyone alive and fed and warm, but when they get there their muscles are so atrophied they can't stand up, even under Mars' relatively low gravity? Gee, that would suck, wouldn't it? What sort of exercise keeps people fit longest in space? Are their nutritional needs different? How do you keep them from going crazy cooped up in such a small space?

Of course we've made some wrong turns - that is inevitable when exploring new frontiers. Even when we've learned something is inefficient well, we've learned that. Learning what not to do is important, too. In other words, I don't think the last few decades have been a total waste, even if we didn't do all I hoped and dreamed about when I saw the Apollo rockets launching on TV.

[Broomstick]

Sure it is. Water for instance can be cracked to produce rocket fuel. And water happens to be quite common once you go into the outer solar system.

Yeah, that just leaves the problem of getting to the outer solar system in the first place...

[Simon_Jester]

Modern communications technology probably does a lot to keep people from going space-crazy that wouldn't have been possible in the '70s, come to think of it. While astronauts on Mars won't be able to engage in real-time video chats or anything*, there are simply more options for keeping people happy and in touch with their loved ones today using low-mass equipment than there were thirty or forty years ago.

*(speed of light delays alone are a problem, and bandwidth is probably a big issue too)

[Crossroads Inc.]

Sure it is. Water for instance can be cracked to produce rocket fuel. And water happens to be quite common once you go into the outer solar system.

Yeah, that just leaves the problem of getting to the outer solar system in the first place...

For getting out and setting up early stations, you can't beat Nuclear Power Worked like a Charm, for Cassini and of course Voyager before it. Sure people yell and scream about "OMG NUKES!" but it really is amazing for long haul trips.

As for a Mars trip, well a lot of what Broom brings up are things peopel have been working on for the last 20 years. Exercise, Nutrition, keeping people sane. A lot of the ground work is laid for that and there have been plenty of studies and science done.

Not that, for me, Mars is the important. Actually let me rephrase that. Mars is VERY important I feel for our future. But jumping out with another Apollo like program, making some huge onetrip beast and lfying there just to say "we did it" is very much the wrong way to go.

It isn't about GOING to Mars, it is about STAYING on Mars. And putting up a very robust inferstructure first is far more important right now.

[eion]

This is why I laugh at Mars Society and other MARS NAOW!! advocates who would throw space infrastructure projects under the bus, if it meant landing a man on Mars in their lifetime.

If you don't have a destination, why the fuck would you build a gas station? And if you can get to the destination without stopping at the gas station, why the fuck do you need to build it?

While it is necessary and proper for us to develop orbital refineries and fuel stations to further our presence in space they are not needed to go to Mars, especially if one uses 19th century chemistry to make one's return fuel on Mars itself with overwhelmingly local components. If Mars is the destination, then Mars is the gas station.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and I think you mischaracterize many if not most "MARS NAOW!! advocates". The reason some of them are critical of space stations and moonbases is when people say "Well we can't go to Mars unless we build a dry-dock on the Moon to make the spaceship, and we can't build a Lunar Dry-dock without a massive space station in LEO." And then you turn around and you've turned what could be a done for $50 billion over 10 years into $500 Billion over 30 years. Ridiculous.

It's wrong to use Mars as a promised destination to further projects, that while ultimately important, are not directly related to taking our first steps on another planet, and hopefully staying there since once you get a nice greenhouse going you can pretty much stay as long as your nuclear reactor is able to keep producing fuel and oxygen for your exploration activities. Add in some relatively cheap one-way resupply and upstaffing missions and before you know it you have a fucking colony on another planet.

We need to stop nickel and diming the NASA budget. We are more than rich enough to fund our first manned exploration (and hopefully colonization) of another planet within 10 years, and start building the infrastructure that will ultimately allow us to build vessels worthy of being called starships.

There’s an old government joke I shall paraphrase, “A Space Infrastructurist arrives at his first NASA conference and sees a more experienced colleague. He walks up to her and asks ‘You’re a space infrastructurist, right?’ She nods. ‘Excellent, Where are the Mars Nowers? I want to see the enemy.’ She shakes her head with a smile, ‘The Mars Nowers are the opposition. They just have a different thought about how we should go into space, Congress, who doesn’t want to go into space at all, is the enemy.’”

[Serafina]

Modern communications technology probably does a lot to keep people from going space-crazy that wouldn't have been possible in the '70s, come to think of it. While astronauts on Mars won't be able to engage in real-time video chats or anything*, there are simply more options for keeping people happy and in touch with their loved ones today using low-mass equipment than there were thirty or forty years ago.

*(speed of light delays alone are a problem, and bandwidth is probably a big issue too)

Astronauts going to space will essentially use something like Facebook.
That's the simplest way to explain it. Just imagine not seeing all your loved ones for months or years, but staying in contact with them via Facebook. Might not be 100% accurate, but it's easy to imagine and probably quite close.

[Sarevok]

I think the psychological issues from isolation problem is overblown. Multiple individuals have spent over a year onboard the Mir and ISS without issue. Humans can handle living in spacecraft for that time period or more possibly.