NASA looking to build "gas" stations in space

[Broomstick]

Yes, but those individuals have been screened for tolerance for those conditions, and there needed to be studies on how much leisure time, personal space, and so forth are needed by people.

[PeZook]

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.

They were never truly isolated. The Earth was right there and if a problem occured, they could be evacuated and safe within minutes.

And of course the research related to a Mars mission is not just concerned with psychological issues, but many mundanely technical ones, like "How to make a spacecraft that doesn't have to be resupplied for two to five years?"

[Sarevok]

I dunno if resupply is a problem Pezook. Think about how long seagoing ships can stay out of contact with land. Or a SSBN submarine that has to provide life support for the crew in addition to carrying food. If you can build a big enough spacecraft say the size of ISS you can pack everything you need for years and provide large living spaces. Resupply and psychological issues only arise if we are thinking of sending people on multi year voyages inside a tiny capsule.

[PeZook]

I dunno if resupply is a problem Pezook. Think about how long seagoing ships can stay out of contact with land. Or a SSBN submarine that has to provide life support for the crew in addition to carrying food.

First of all, psychological issues on SSBNs are actually significant. Second, supply issues mean their patrols are far shorter than any possible Mars mission. Third, they have an abundant supply of oxygen, drinking water and energy. Fourth, they are never far from rescue and resupply.

If you can build a big enough spacecraft say the size of ISS you can pack everything you need for years and provide large living spaces. Resupply and psychological issues only arise if we are thinking of sending people on multi year voyages inside a tiny capsule.

The ISS has to receive supplies, including water and oxygen, every four months or so, and it has the most advanced life support system ever installed on a spacecraft to date. The issue is very serious: a simple toilet problem which was a minor failure on the ISS would be a major crisis if the station was eight months away from the nearest resupply flight.

[Sarevok]

Hmm those are all good points. Though I am not sure if there could be any practical solutions to eliminating isolation and resupply issues in long space voyages. The crew might have to accept the risks as it is.

[PeZook]

Hmm those are all good points. Though I am not sure if there could be any practical solutions to eliminating isolation and resupply issues in long space voyages. The crew might have to accept the risks as it is.

These are very tough technological challenges, yes, which is why it took so long to get to the point where we are now

The once-a-quarter resupply for the ISS is in fact extremely good as far as history of manned spaceflight is concerned. The solution to this problem is obviously an extremely reliable and redundant closed-loop life support system coupled with lots and lots of onboard supplies.

The ISS is invaluable for testing the concept, and already yielded us a lot of information on the issues involved (along with MIR, obviously).

[Broomstick]

Another point is that we really did not know how well various materials were going to last long term in space. Only actual time could determine that. Things like the mold problem on Mir were unanticipated. I'm sure there's been substantial work done on protection against micrometeorites. I don't think you should discount a couple decades of studying how actual materials fare after years in space. Now we have a good grasp of what can last 10 years in space (not a bad benchmark for a Mars mission structure, as it would be a mult-year voyage and you'll need more than the minimum structure to get there and back) but we couldn't say that in 1970, or even 1980.

[Skgoa]

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.’”

People like you are the reason why I don't actively participate in american space and rocket science forums.

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.

There is no reason why IP traffic couldn't be routed directly to the spacecraft.

[someone_else]

Any of the experts on the board have any predictions on what this program will be used for?

The simplest thing is using this to do stuff like we had a Saturn V by using a couple Falcon heavys. Which is a pretty huge thing done at a rather cheap price.

Saturn V ---> 2 billion dollars plus spare change. Out of production, to start again similar program you have to trow tens of billions away and wait 5-10 years in development. And hope the next president doesn't kill it.

Falcon heavy ---> 100 million dollars, 50 tons of payload to LEO. Will start flying in a few years.

And even if that rocket doesn't pan out, any dry space vehicle is usually light enough to be lifted on rockets we have already, then refuelled in orbit with fuel sent up with cheaper rockets. The fuel is usually 3-6 times the dry vehicle mass.

For more commercial things, you can use propellant depots to place stuff in GEO (the orbit where most useful satellites sit) much more cheaply, by using cheaper rockets like Zenits ---> 40 million dollars, to bring 13 tons of propellant to LEO.

Say a Proton rocket brings 22 tons up to LEO, but if it must reach GEO, the payload is just 5 tons. If you launch a Zenit with fuel for it, the payload to GEO becomes 15 or so tons. But you payed only 85 million dollars for the Proton and 40 million dollars for the Zenit (plus say 10 million dollars for fuel transfer, even if it seems a huge price to me). You just tripled the payload to GEO without even doubling the price. Isn't that a good deal?

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)

Dunno if this is your dad, but astronautix has a pretty interesting article that talks about the issue, here

water happens to be quite common once you go into the outer solar system.

Newsflash for you: there are significant amounts of water on the moon.

[Sarevok]

There is no reason why IP traffic could ... acecraft.

The ISS now has internet connection. Crews on long duration voyages could be ensured same service.

Newsflash for you: there are significant amounts of water on the moon.

Yes but in what form that water exists is unknown. Some speculate the water is locked up in lunar regolith and could be released by heating it. Depending on how hard it is to extract that water other more abundant sources such as cometary ice might be more economical.

[Broomstick]

There is no reason why IP traffic couldn't be routed directly to the spacecraft.

The ISS now has internet connection. Crews on long duration voyages could be ensured same service.

Certainly. It's just that the communications won't be in real time. I think Mars is 20 light minutes away or something, right? Enough that while you could exchange e-mails or post on a message board or facebook or whatever you couldn't have a real-time conversation with people. If you asked a question you'd have to wait at least 40 minutes to get a response.

Of course, prior to the 20th Century people didn't have real time conversations at any significant distance, either. They exchanged letters and such, sometimes months (even years) going by between a letter and the response to it. People would just resume that sort of practice if we colonize the solar system. We might be exchanging video clips transmitted via radio or whatever instead of physical pieces of paper, but the basic concept is the same.

[erik_t]

Any of the experts on the board have any predictions on what this program will be used for?

The simplest thing is using this to do stuff like we had a Saturn V by using a couple Falcon heavys. Which is a pretty huge thing done at a rather cheap price.

Saturn V ---> 2 billion dollars plus spare change. Out of production, to start again similar program you have to trow tens of billions away and wait 5-10 years in development. And hope the next president doesn't kill it.

Falcon heavy ---> 100 million dollars, 50 tons of payload to LEO. Will start flying in a few years.

And even if that rocket doesn't pan out, any dry space vehicle is usually light enough to be lifted on rockets we have already, then refuelled in orbit with fuel sent up with cheaper rockets. The fuel is usually 3-6 times the dry vehicle mass.

Oooh ooh I fucking love seeing straight-faced comparisons between a real-life cost of a full-lifecycle real world system and a privately funded set of powerpoint slides.

[Sarevok]

Of course, prior to the 20th Century people didn't have real time conversations at any significant distance, either. They exchanged letters and such, sometimes months (even years) going by between a letter and the response to it. People would just resume that sort of practice if we colonize the solar system. We might be exchanging video clips transmitted via radio or whatever instead of physical pieces of paper, but the basic concept is the same.

Well think about how we communicate on this forum via postings and PMs. Or sharing videos and pictures on facebook. The participants of such "conversations" are often entire timezone away so while one types the other sleeps. Hardly real time is it ? :d

I think the web has already prepared an entire generation to the concept of non real time multimedia communication.

[Count Chocula]

Silly question: WHAT are we actually planning to refuel? The STS program is going bye-bye and Obama's proposed human space flight policy has us not even beginning construction of a heavy lift vehicle until 2015. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

[The Romulan Republic]

People like you are the reason why I don't actively participate in american space and rocket science forums.

What a stunningly eloquent and thought-out rebuttal.

[someone_else]

Oooh ooh I fucking love seeing straight-faced comparisons between a real-life cost of a full-lifecycle real world system and a privately funded set of powerpoint slides.

SpaceX hasn't failed to deliver its Falcon 9 or its Dragon capsule. Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9 bolted together, not a major engineering feat after what they have already done.

Silly question: WHAT are we actually planning to refuel?

Anyone that wants to send stuff to GEO can benefit from such tech. Iridium for example will have to change its constellation relatively soon.

Also, this should remove the need for a heavy launch vehicle if goes like planned. The vast majority of a spacecraft weight is fuel anyway, if you can send that up with multiple rockets you don't need a Big One that carries everything + fuel in one piece.

And again, this allows the use of space tugs to move around satellites or to de-orbit dangerous stuff.

Some speculate the water is locked up in lunar regolith and could be released by heating it.

Considering that they smashed a Centaur in a dark crater and saw significant amounts of water by spectroanalysing the crap it threw up, I don't think it's so hard to harvest. (LCROSS mission)

[erik_t]

Oooh ooh I fucking love seeing straight-faced comparisons between a real-life cost of a full-lifecycle real world system and a privately funded set of powerpoint slides.

SpaceX hasn't failed to deliver its Falcon 9 or its Dragon capsule. Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9 bolted together, not a major engineering feat after what they have already done.

We're talking costs, dumbass. Nobody doubts their ability to put up a Big Dumb Booster once or twice.

[Skgoa]

People like you are the reason why I don't actively participate in american space and rocket science forums.

What a stunningly eloquent and thought-out rebuttal.

Lets here from someone on one of these forums:

You're right that tunnel vision is a problem in the space enthusiast world. What few people realize is just how many different factors are taken into consideration when these decisions are made. Lots of people discuss lots of different aspects before reaching an agreement. It's common in the blogosphere for people to equate "workforce" or "industrial base" with "jobs" and decide that it all boils down to congressional votes. But while Congress' interest in protecting jobs is important, there are indeed people in the agencies and in the White House who look at this stuff and ask questions like "If we fire 6000 trained aerospace workers now, will we be able to hire skilled people five years from now? If not, should we keep some of these people employed anyway just to preserve that capability?"

I am probably rambling on a bit, but one of my (many) pet peeves is when I see people applying their ideological solutions to situations without thought, rather than trying to analyze the situation and determine what is the best course of action. I've heard people claim that we could explore Mars with lots of cheap, inexpensive robotic spacecraft, or we could solve the asteroid threat to Earth by allowing private enterprise to mine the asteroids. They don't spend any time researching the actual situation, they just apply a preformed opinion to whatever it is that they encounter.

From here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... #msg473922 Bolding of parts by me.

[someone_else]

We're talking costs, dumbass. Nobody doubts their ability to put up a Big Dumb Booster once or twice.

Fair point.
I'll try to correct the above post with rockets we have already.

Delta IV for example, can bring up 22 tons or so to LEO with an expense of between 140 and 170 millions (Proton rockets from Soviet Russia can do the same for 85 millions).

The dry mass of the actual spacecraft on top of the Saturn V (capsule+

service module

+lander (ascent and descent stages)+earth orbit departure stage) is 5.5+6+4+11 = 26.5 tons (respectively).

Since the crew will be lifted in their capsule only when everything is ready (filling tanks will take some time), the actual vehicle dry mass is only 21 tons. Doable with the above.

Then you can send up the fuel mass needed by all the stuff above, that is again 18+10.5+105 =133.5 tons (respectively for service module+lander+earth orbit departure stage).

Zenits bring 13.7 tons to LEO at 50 millions per launch. That's ten Zenits, total cost of 500 millions.
Falcon 9 can do worse, at 10 tons and 56 millions per launch it will need 13 launches and 728 millions.

Let's say another random rocket to bring the capsule up when everything is ready, a Falcon 9 or a Soyuz for around 50 millions.

Total operation cost (without the cost of the actual space vehicle that you have to pay in any case) if we wanted to go Full American Rockets= 170+ 728+56= 954 million dollars.

If we wanted to go full-cheap-from-soviet-russia (zenits are from ukraine, but anyway) that's 85 + 500 + 50 = 635 million dollars.

In theory, launching so much rockets should decrease their price, although none knows how much so we'll disregard that.

I don't know how much the fuel-transfer stuff will cost, but beating Saturn V's whopping 2 billion dollars (apiece) of price is not going to be difficult with this kind of setup.

Also, this doesn't require a so expensive and lenghty development as another HLV, so it may manage to survive future funding cuts and deliver what it promises.

[eion]

Skogoa, I still don't understand why you find my original post so repugnant, and quoting somebody else didn't make it any clearer. Make your own arguments or just shut up.

My point was we spend a pittance on Space Exploration, less than 1% of our federal budget since 1994 in fact. And even with the spare change we throw them, NASA does incredible things. I want space exploration depoliticized because it is too damn important to be locked up in a debate over "jobs" or "nuclear danger" or any other issue. We ought to be giving NASA 5%, 10%, maybe 15% of the annual federal budget and a long term goal and let them do it. If we want to debate over them throwing away money if they have a bigger budget that's fine, it's a perfectly valid issue, and there are methods to work around that, but they need more money and they need big goals to motivate them.

Our future as a species is too important to let space exploration be divided into ideological camps and tribes.

[Broomstick]

Our future as a species is too important to let space exploration be divided into ideological camps and tribes.

Unfortunately, our history as a species makes those divisions all too likely.

[Skgoa]

Well, maybe if you guys stopped lamenting the end of human spaceflight for all our species just because YOUR NATION'S space agency had it's budget cut and is currently changing/renewing its launch infrastructure, cooperation might have a chance.

Skogoa

Oh, smooth...

My point was we spend a pittance on Space Exploration, less than 1% of our federal budget since 1994 in fact. And even with the spare change we throw them, NASA does incredible things. I want space exploration depoliticized because it is too damn important to be locked up in a debate over "jobs" or "nuclear danger" or any other issue. We ought to be giving NASA 5%, 10%, maybe 15% of the annual federal budget and a long term goal and let them do it. If we want to debate over them throwing away money if they have a bigger budget that's fine, it's a perfectly valid issue, and there are methods to work around that, but they need more money and they need big goals to motivate them.

Our future as a species is too important to let space exploration be divided into ideological camps and tribes.

IMO your worst offence is what you repeated here: even though your country is in an extremely bad economic situation - with millions displaced from their homes and people DYING due to lack of food and/or shelter - you want more monies for MOAR PHALLIC TOYS NAO!!! "5%, 10%, maybe 15% of the annual federal budget"? Thats delusional. No, thats VILE. You are a selfish asshole. Has it really never occured to you that people would like their children to get an education, their parents to get healthcare, rather than people on Mars?
The other big issue I have with your previous post is that you declare (in a pretty authorative style) what ought to be done, even though the experts say otherwise. I am just fed up with armchair rocket engineers and am sorry that it blew up in your face, but combined with the above, I had to vent a bit.

[eion]

pardon the mistype.

I forgot that NASA employees work for free. They totally don't earn salaries that are used to buy groceries, and pay rent, and in short employ other people through their spending. I also forgot that major contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and newcomers like SpaceX also don't pay their employees or use the developments made for their contracts in civilian projects. I also clearly forgot that most economist agree that just about the worst thing a government can do during a recession/depression is to cut spending. God forbid we use a strategy that helped bring America out of the Great Depression.

Government spending is not a zero sum game. I know armchair economics like you like to think that a dollar spent on space exploration is a dollar taken from a starving child but it just doesn't work like that. And if we didn't waste quite so much money on useless wars, outdated subsidies, and defense waste we might actually be able to up the NASA budget without touching other programs. Between elimination of the oil subsidies and the outdated farm subsidies we could probably fund a Mars mission with some change left over.

Fuck your apology. I haven't the patience to argue with someone who seems to want to burn down a salvagable house to save 40-cents on nails for a shack.

[K. A. Pital]

People dying due to lack of food or shelter? That happens outside America, and America does not give a crap, oh no.

Now, if America spent 500 billion dollars every year on eliminating hunger, perhaps hunger was already eliminated by now. It is not. However, 500 billion dollars are spent inside America to make military machinery and the like for America to use in endless wars in regions far away from America. Is it worthless spending, or is it creating workplaces and wages so that people can eat? It's either this or that. So beware of throwing stones from a glass house. Civilian space exploration is still waay back in the priorities, as is combatting poverty. Those goals are not mutually exclusive, no matter what the luddites would like us to believe.

As for what experts think, there are many experts in the field of space exploration and their opinions do not always coincide. However, that does not mean those experts are opposed to increased space exploration spending, they just have different goals. Meteorologists feel it would be best to spend on weather satellites, military people feel it would be great to have war machines in space, interplanetary scholars maintain that there's a need for missions to other planets, both manned and unmanned... it is a matter of their chosen field of work.

[eion]

Fatalities caused by spaceflight: 452 or so
Fatalities caused by war: 219 million on the very low end.

I imagine I'd have a far easier time getting to sleep at night as a rocket engineer than a weapons engineer. Not all government spending is created equally.