20 thoughts on “Extraterrestrial Resources”

    2. I like Rand’s thoughts on how the ISS could be much more productive with an increase of crew. There is a lot of potential there and any ISS replacement is a decade or more away, for NASA anyway.

      The ISS isn’t perfect but it is a small step in the right direction. Just need to put that next foot forward or make sure the plant foot is stable and your chest is over before kicking the ball.

  2. Sending a rover to produce LOX from lunar soil would be 10 times more important for space development and for building a sustainable space infrastructure.

      1. Rand,

        All the more reason for NASA to do it. Recall that NACA was created specifically for solving the difficult problems in aviation technology, ones too difficult and expensive for industry to do effectively on it’s own. Supersonic Flight is the classic example. That function, expanded to aerospace is still part of NASA’s charter.

        http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS

        (9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

        Sounds like LOX fits that statement far more the showing we are able to distill oxygen out of the Mars atmosphere. Really a firm like Union Carbide could probably have one of its junior engineers solve that problem in no time, if there was a commercial need to do so.

        But the difference is that a successful LOX demonstration could jump start a commercial fuel depot industry exactly in line with Function 9 above, whereas the only near term use for this NASA experiment will be fuel for a Mars sample return mission.

        No, this isn’t a step ahead for space commerce, merely more evidence of NASA dysfunctional fixation of searching for life on Mars.

        1. ” All the more reason for NASA to do it… Really a firm like Union Carbide could probably have one of its junior engineers solve that problem in no time, if there was a commercial need to do so”

          Why keep arguing both sides of the coin? I don’t have a problem with the idea that in some circumstances NASA should help industry and in others they are a detriment to it but you never phrase your points like that.

          1. Because I have yet to find evidence of NASA being anything but detriment to industry in the decades since Project Apollo. All the more reason to shut it down.

          2. “All the more reason for NASA to do it.”

            “All the more reason to shut it down.”

            You seem to pick a position based on opposition to whatever the topic is rather than having a consistent ideal you are arguing for.

          3. The ideal is simple and I will spell it out for you. The constitutional justification for agencies like NASA is to promote the general welfare. Traditionally this means developing technology that expands the U.S. industrial base and build its economy. This was one of the justifications, and successes of Project Apollo. And even the Space Shuttle as it was originally envision fit under.

            However, in recent decades NASA has demonstrated it really doesn’t see that as much of a priority instead spending its time searching for ET or recycling old technology (SLS) to keep astronauts flying for PR sake.

            Finding ET on Mars might be fun, and beneficial for a handful of scientists and it make be fun for some to relive the 1960’s with SLS, but neither is helping the U.S. become more competitive in the global economy or expand its industrial base. Which means neither really justify using taxpayers dollars to continue to fund NASA. So unless NASA changes its ways it should be shut down. A lunar ISRU would be one indication it still had relevance but of course its not doing a lunar ISRU.

        2. Egad, man! You respond “All the more reason for NASA to do it” above and “All the more reason to shut it down” below! You tout your academic credentials?

          I believe you were a key contributor to defining the adage “it’s purely academic at this point”, which means it’s a moot point offered by someone who simply likes to hear themselves talk.

      2. As a side note, neither NACA, NASA, nor the brightest engineers at the major aerospace companies were able to create a civilian transport aircraft capable of flying Guatemalans back to Guatemala. It probably didn’t seem that important of an undertaking back in the day, but the industry should take another look at that glaring oversight, and take it as an aerodynamic challenge.

      3. In physical plant only. And when transportation costs and the time value of money is calculated in, it might just be advantage moon. And certainly more useful as Thomas points out. I don’t think there is much doubt about the ability to distill O2 from Martian air.

        1. I’m not saying its the highest priority demo to do, just that it’s nice to see them doing something that indicates they understand the importance of learning to live off the land.

          1. Rand,

            But its not really about living off the land in the terms you think, space settlement. Its only function would be to demonstrate Martian LOX could be ability to fuel a Mars Sample Return mission. And the reason for that is because we don’t know how to send a vehicle to the surface of Mars with enough fuel to return to Earth, so its more an act of desperation than an advance in living off the land. And of course it would only apply to Mars.

            If you are interest here is a paper on the strategy.

            http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/7thmars2007/pdf/3369.pdf

  3. Like the proverbial dancing bear, the wonder of the thing is not that it’s done badly, but that it’s done at all.

  4. @ Thomas 12:52 PM 10 Aug

    The paper mentions that bringing the deep cryo H2 for a leverage of 18 to Mars may be too difficult. One work around was to send water to Mars for cracking into H2 and O2 and use the Martian carbon to take it to CH4 and O2 with a leverage of 2.2.

    Wouldn’t sending RP1 to react with Martian O2 for a 3.5 leverage make a lot more sense? Is it possible that the authors of that study are so focused on creating CH4 with Martian carbon that they have boxed in their options?

  5. Rand is absolutely right that it is a step in the right direction regardless of it’s practical value. If they keep doing things like this eventually they’ll accidentally do the right thing at least some of the time.

    Any base is going to need power at night. A nuclear reactor on the surface might be a good thing.

Comments are closed.