Main Article: NASA: Time to build America's first gas station.
Jonathan Goff and Robb Coppinger write about fuel depots.
Poll Results: The third weekly tracking poll on support for NASA spending. Scroll down to see results.
Star Trek: - In the News - Scroll down to read the lastest, click subscribe to keep getting news.
Yesterday's Interesting Comment: "I still believe commercializing space will turn us into Ferengi. Especially if the Republicans have something to do with it. The last thing we need after this administration is more privatization." - Futuristic Dreamer
Today's Poll: So let it be written, so let it be done."Lets develop a LEO to GEO space economy."
America has to stretch it's thinking. The topic of Fuel depots and stations was recently discussed by Jonathan Goff and Rob Coppinger. Rob was opposed to a fuel depot, Jon is a supporter of the idea.
I will show a couple quotes and comment on them. There are links to the full discussion. After reading up hit the comments section and express your opinion.
First off:
I advocate for human crewed activities and the development of commercial space and make no apologies for not presenting robby the robot's side. I am more interested in putting Robby the human Astronaut into space then robby the robot. The "machines" have enough advocates presenting that case.
I want to return the dream to young Progressives that if they work hard and study math and science one day they can reach for the stars and make it into space.
I can not imagine young people, daydreaming wistfully about one day being able to send a camera to the stars, so they can sit on the couch and watch.
Mister Goff, in one of his points on increased technology:Key technologies
"Reusable Orbital Transportation: I wouldn’t consider our society to be truly spacefaring until we had an off-earth population at least as high as Tehachapi, with the number of trips to orbit per day at least as high as the daily number of general aviation flights in and out of Mojave Airport. That’s a pretty darned low bar to set, but orders of magnitude more than what we’ve currently acheived after nearly 40 years. Expendables are still useful, will still be around for a while, will still be economically viable in the near to medium term, but are utterly incapable of supporting this kind of a traffic rate. When you factor everything (including third party liability insurance, manufacturing costs, launch licensing costs, etc, etc, etc), you eventually reach the point where you realize that long-term, reusability is not an option, it has to come standard. Here’s a few subtechnologies that I think will be important to master:"
I tend to disagree, I do not feel we need to set the bar that high. Think of an elevator that takes a miner to WORK in a mine. You are not there to sight see, or do science, the elavator is to get your butt up and down safely.
If America had 12 companies, launching six times a year, with 6 passengers per capsule, we would have 432 workers making it into space every year on simple "pop & drop" systems. No need to get fancy until the demand starts pushing R&D.
NASA shouldn't be in the business of launching to LEO unless they are testing a new vehicle, like a manned fly back booster launching a HL-20 or something similiar.
The real enabler is flight rate, increase the flight rate and you can start cutting prices. There is only thing that will increase flight rates, and it isn't launching "tito robot fuel depot".
I can't imagine the launch flight rate increasing to 1000 robots a year, or 10,000. There will never be enough robotic missions to increase the flight rate..
You want to launch as much human cargo as possible. The demands for cargo launches to resupply humans in space is what makes it happen. The more humans we can get into space, the more cargo launches.
The closest place to work is 25,000 miles away at GEO. Building space Vehicles for LEO2GEO Satellite repair and service along with space junk removal ia the closest place to start working in space. If Space Solar Power (SSP) is looked at, these vehicles would be invaluable to already have in place and a gas and go fuel station.
"When you have the government science mission needs. With China, India and Japan all sending robots to the Moon there is a clear growing demand for spacecraft to make extra-LEO trips and the global exploration strategy, if followed, will only increase that. Those robotic spacecraft going to the Moon are a function of the money governments are prepared to spend on them, the technological development required, their range of scientific instruments, platform size, power needs (is it solar or is nuclear?), overall payload/platform mass, which in turn is dictated by the rocket market on offer and the governments' budgets for launch purchases" Rob Coppinger
This is Mister Goff's responce.
"Fantasy" of Propellant Depots?
"one of them was when Rob goes on about all the costs of a depot. But instead of listing anything new, he goes and lists a bunch of stuff that are typical costs for any spacecraft. In fact, he lists several costs that are typically rolled into the cost of launch (like the cost of the launch’s ground support and the cost of shipping the rocket to its launch site). And then he acts like this is some sort of major news that none of us depot supporters have ever thought of before. Sure, propellant depots have costs associated with them. We know that. Nothing in life is free, but none of that is all that hard in the overall scheme of things. What matters is whether or not you can keep your costs sufficiently low compared to your revenues to turn a good enough profit. Unfortunately Rob doesn’t actually go into that at all."
Another statement by:
Rob Coppinger
"But where are the customers?
Today spacecraft have fixed inclinations and orbital altitudes, they are not going to blast across to a new plane and dock for fuel. Telecoms and Earth observation satellite propellant resupply vehicles have been in development but to date, despite an obvious market and claims by developers of anchor purchasers waiting in the wings, nothing has materialised
So no market there"
Here is where I take exception. You have hundreds of satellites, worth hundreds of millions each, so therefore you conclude: "So no market there"
That Rob is your exact market. Satellites, yesterday and today, have not been designed for a human service and repair. What if that wasn't case?
What if there was a fuel, resupply, service and repair station for "gas and go" LEO2GEO Vehicles that were designed for service and repair of those very same satellites.
How would the designs for satellites change if there were such a vehicle and fuel station?
Why do I advocate so strongly for GEO development and not the moon or mars?
Because private property rights have not been established on the Moon or Mars and they have for GEO. You can get a piece of "real estate" by obtaining a:Hot Orbital Slots: Is There Anything Left? - Mark Holmes
"With satellite operators around the world looking to gain an edge in terms of offering new services, access to real estate is vital. However, with most of the so-called hot orbital slots taken, what opportunities remain for satellite operators to develop new positions or make better use of the existing slots?
As satellite operators seek to make the most of their orbital slots, developments in satellite technology and a more progressive approach by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) offer the most promising methods to meet this goal. This is a multi-faceted debate with no easy answer as to what can be done to create additional room for more spacecraft. Most industry experts agree, however, that more can be done to free up slots and developing existing locations more effectively."
In an OpEd Andrea Maleter talks about more competition:Slots: Hot Real Estate Markets
"Spectrum and orbital slots have always been key prizes in the satellite business -- much desired and fought over. Battles within national regulatory bodies and at the International Telecommunications Union have pitted existing users against each other and against emerging technologies for prime real estate in the table of frequency allocations. Companies with operational satellites on orbit want to launch replacements with expanded capabilities, and new operators want to put up new satellites in highly congested prime real estate in the geosynchronous orbital arc.
So what's different now? For one thing, the dramatic growth in mobile telecommunications worldwide"
Will Rodgers said, buy real estate, they ain't makin' any more of it.
Same for satellite slots, Satellite owners will want a satellite to stay on station forever, just upgrade it.
Add in space tourism and with Bigelow already stating the points in space he was interested in, building LEO2GEO capability with a LEO fuel station and you have the start of a gas and go space economy. The first Commercial Satellite Company that designs for service missions will get to launch a satellite hub, then just do periodic upgrades.
GEO is the closest place we can immediately start working and we are not faced with another gravity well when he get there.
POLL RESULTS:
This was the third week of our tracking poll looking at support for space spending.
27% choose: MORE then 4% the peak spending during Apollo.
This has been the top answer. Lot of pro spacers voting.
STAR TREK: In the News.
Star Trek : Destiny -- Book 3: Lost SoulsBy Bill Williams
"The soldiers of Armageddon are on the march, laying waste to worlds in their passage. An audacious plan could stop them forever, but it carries risks that one starship captain is unwilling to take. For Captain Jean-Luc Picard, defending the future has never been so important, or so personal -- and the wrong choice will cost him everything for which he has struggled and suffered."
YESTERDAY'S INTERESTING COMMENTS:
When talking about what percent of the budget should NASA get:
"Rate of Return on space exploration is probably worth the >4%." - Tetris
An answer all space supporters love to hear. A tip of the hat.
----------
"I think SPS in Geosynch would be the best plan. You could also make the SPS platforms double as commsats.
I'm not against moon-based power transmission, but... I think the additional distance involved, plus the fact that the moon moves around means more complexity, less precision, more beam spread. I don't like additional variables.
Whatever the hell we end up doing... We HAVE to get the hell out of this Shuttle-based LEO standard orbit." - Angry Toy Robot
----------
"Considering Jupiter's recent...encounter with Shoemaker-Levy.
It's damn well right we need a planetary defense system.
Space-based/land-based whatever - it's crazy not to.
And the returns from the investment in useful technology - Priceless." - Sanuk
TODAY'S POLL: So Let it be written so let it be done.
President Elect Barack Obama and future Secretary of Commerce, Bill Richardson, should have NASA work towards America designing and building a Fuel Depot and a "gas and go" vehicle to start the development of LEO to GEO.