NASA Still Thinks Fuel Depots Are A Good Idea (But Won't Say So)

NASA Still Thinks Fuel Depots Are A Good Idea (But Won't Say So)
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...till-thin.html

From above:

"From the standpoint of S&MA's role in technology assessment and
prioritization, it seems depot technologies should be a high priority
for investment due to their potential to achieve Agency goals to achieve
"Low Cost Reliable Access To Space", if the technology can be
successfully developed, demonstrated, matured, infused, evolved, and
applied in future architectures so as to fully realize its benefit."

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Apr 23, 2:27*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA Still Thinks Fuel Depots Are A Good Idea (But Won't Say So)http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...till-thin.html

From above:

"From the standpoint of S&MA's role in technology assessment and
prioritization, it seems depot technologies should be a high priority
for investment due to their potential to achieve Agency goals to achieve
"Low Cost Reliable Access To Space", if the technology can be
successfully developed, demonstrated, matured, infused, evolved, and
applied in future architectures so as to fully realize its benefit."

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

Boeing OASIS (Earth-moon L1) space gas station, as a viable gateway
was an engineered good deal as of over a decade ago.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/spacearchitects/A..._IAF_Paper.pdf

They could also store HTP and potent hydrocarbon synfuels almost
indefinitely, not to mention the crystal dry Acetone Peroxide that
offers a 5.3 km/sec reaction value.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

If NASA wants an orbiting fuel depot, maybe they
should develop the technology to harvest and store
the antimatter in Earth's orbit:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390638,00.asp

Quote:

"The Earth has a ring of antimatter encircling it, says new data from
the Pamela space satellite, a multinational project aimed at studying
the planet’s magnetosphere. The discovery has fueled speculation that
the antimatter might someday be harvested to power advanced
spacecraft."

That way, they wouldn't have to periodically
launch fuel from Earth.

On Apr 25, 3:44*pm, wrote:
If NASA wants an orbiting fuel depot, maybe they
should develop the technology to harvest and store
the antimatter in Earth's orbit:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390638,00.asp

Quote:

"The Earth has a ring of antimatter encircling it, says new data from
the Pamela space satellite, a multinational project aimed at studying
the planet’s magnetosphere. The discovery has fueled speculation that
the antimatter might someday be harvested to power advanced
spacecraft."

That way, they wouldn't have to periodically
launch fuel from Earth.

That's a lot of antimatter pie in the sky.

You think storing liquid cryogenic fuels in pace is complicated and
inefficient, it's nothing compared to capturing and safely storing
antimatter. It would be a whole lot easier and safer to store Acetone
Peroxide.

Fission fuels and even radium for its heavy ions of radon could be a
whole lot better.

He3 and deuterium as fusion fuel might not be so unlikely.

The Earth-moon L1 location for this fuel depot/gateway (aka OASIS)
would be ideal.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 4/23/2012 5:27 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA Still Thinks Fuel Depots Are A Good Idea (But Won't Say So)
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...till-thin.html

Just from a physics perspective, if you posit the eventual existence of exo-atmospheric vehicles this seems like the only real
fueling alternative. Doubly so if the fuel can be brought up from even "less-deep" gravity wells, such as Lunar ice.

It's just that this is still a long way off from where we are today...

Dave

On May 7, 5:15*am, David Spain wrote:
On 4/23/2012 5:27 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:



NASA Still Thinks Fuel Depots Are A Good Idea (But Won't Say So)
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...till-thin.html

Just from a physics perspective, if you posit the eventual existence of exo-atmospheric vehicles this seems like the only real
fueling alternative. Doubly so if the fuel can be brought up from even "less-deep" gravity wells, such as Lunar ice.

It's just that this is still a long way off from where we are today...

Dave

You seem convinced that we're not smart enough, nor despite enough.

What's so insurmountable about a Clarke Station or a Boeing OASIS?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


You seem convinced that we're not smart enough, nor despite enough.

What's so insurmountable about a Clarke Station or a Boeing OASIS?

it's too despite