NASA panel favors orbital fuel depots, asteroid crewed missions

[Sam Fraser]

On 30 July, the panel's subcommittee on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit came out strongly in favour of creating fuel depots in space as a way to facilitate exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.300-orbiting-gas-station-could-refuel-lunar-missions.html

=====

One of the options the team proposed is called the "flexible path", which Crawley also described as a "deep space" or "in space" option.

It would see astronauts sent on a series of progressively longer missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The first would fly by the moon. Later missions would include rendezvousing with one or more of the many asteroids on orbits that take them close to Earth. Asteroid missions would take several months each.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17540-nasa-panel-may-propose-deep-space-crewed-missions.html (this is actually a different link to the one truncated above)

=====

Here's a related article about a "space gas station" proposed by Boeing from a few years back:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4224660.html?page=1

[Rhyshaelkan]

Beautiful stuff. We need to grab a dead comet and sell water at LEO to all these manned missions. Help cut their costs, and we would see a return on our investments. Win Win.

Water being one of the most useful items in space. Can generate power(with a fuel cell). You can breathe it(after electrolysis. You can drink it. Or you can use it for fuel. You can break it into hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen to purify oxides-of-metals mined from asteroids or Luna.

[Phenix]

I totally agree on dragging one or two asteroids to NEO to test the complete harvesting and industrial processes.

It will take long to go the asteroids and come back to NEO. But for other asteroids to harvest with indistrial processes, it should be conducted in-situ and so on for best incomes with a shorter time.

[Boxy]

Apparently, this panel is taking comments from the public. Here's the link (http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html).

I vote that PERMANENT writes an open letter. In this letter, we should probably outline the following:

Advance of commercial spacecraft for cargo/crew lift purposes (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic)
Economic potential of solar power (24-hour, sunless, noontime exposure to sun; carbonless power generation)
Economic potential of microgravity manufacturing
Economic potential of spaceborn resources (platinum group metals, resources already in space)
Use for asteroidal volatiles (fuel, oxygen, refining purposes, drinking water for habitats)
Use for lunar regolith (silicon solar panels, computer chips)
Joint commercial ventures for resource exploration
Use of commercial space infrastructure (Bigelow Aerospace's "space hotel" and inflatable spacecraft, SpaceX's launch infrastructure)

A definite focus should be exploitation of space resources for economic growth, and use of commercial launch platforms so that NASA doesn't have to re-invent the wheel for doing what they want to do.

[Sam Fraser]

You've got my vote, Boxy! I like your summary of main points we can expand on. Why don't you kick off by writing up a first draft?

[Sam Fraser]

Further comment here:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/31/2016811.aspx

It's called a "blog" or something. :confused: Maybe PERMANENT should have one of these? :rolleyes: