Jon Goff has a vision for space development. As noted in comments, it won’t happen until the government (or at least NASA) gets out of the transportation business, though.
Like some commenters, I wonder if it would really be practical to remediate the Van Allen belts, and if so, if there might be unintended environmental consequences.
Even if you remediate the Van Allen belts you still need to have your electronics harden for solar flares and deep space radiation, so really its a none issue.
It is an issue for things like aerobraking/capture at Earth. But as I said in comments, that suggestion was only one of about twenty, not the core suggestion…
My main point was to show what was possible, and also to show that while it’s possible, the status quo isn’t heading in that direction.
~Jon
Jon,
No, they are still thinking in the same rut.
Tom
still thinking in the same rut
A space tea party? Can I be the mad hatter?
The more I look at it the more obvious it becomes. Getting fuel to orbit drives the cost of everything beyond. Everything else is a distraction. We need an open market for fuel in earth orbit and NASA can act as market maker until they are no longer needed (or are no longer the prime actor in that market.)
They could start with orbiting a LOX storage facility and hosting a bid/ask system (actually, anybody could be the host as long as it’s recognized as having the authority to conduct transactions.) Where anybody could buy and sell (even beyond the actual capacity of the facility) with fuel transfer conducted at a known fixed price or perhaps free (when I pay for gas for my car, I usually don’t also pay a pump usage fee.)
Technically LOX is the oxidizer rather than the fuel, but by starting with LOX means any other fuel that can be used with LOX has to be taken to orbit rather than bought while in orbit (ship design may then have smaller LOX tanks with regard to fuel tanks than we normally see.)
Here is the latest scientists vision btw.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/ler_draft.shtml
Im all for Sust-C-10 !!
They still goof it up when they say things like
The long‐term objective of permanent human presence is in the
form of a self‐sustained settlement, but such an objective is
most defensible when strongly linked to science and feeding
forward to other destinations in the solar system.
Ken,
[[[(when I pay for gas for my car, I usually don’t also pay a pump usage fee.)]]]
You do, but you don’t see it since its included in the fuel cost as part of the mark-up to cover overhead. That is why self-serve fuel is cheaper then non-self serve.
Of the the near term problem is the lack of customers. I supposed NASA planetary missions and comsats launches could be mandated to make use of on-orbit fuel to create a market. But until human missions start going BEO there will be no one to buy it. And even then, unless the flight rate really ramps up, the demand will be low.
One nice thing I liked about the DC-X approach to SSTO (the DC-1) was that it created a need for on orbit refueling, either to enable the DC-1 to continue to the lunar surface, or to return to Earth. That is the type of launch infrastructure, along with “space tugs” that would really benefit from orbital refueling.
near term problem is the lack of customers
This is why you set up an exchange first. You can begin trading LEO LOX before you ever put up an installation.
the DC-X approach
It is a real shame that program ended. In my mind it was a complete success including explosions. Imagine a full scale to orbit vehicle. From orbit, with refueling, they have access to every location on the moon.
Even if they had to mount the DC-?? on a stage to get it to orbit, it would still be a useful thing to have there.
. I supposed NASA planetary missions and comsats launches could be mandated to make use of on-orbit fuel to create a market
Ah, Thomas the central planner, trying to recreate the economic disaster that was the Shuttle, forcing everybody into the Grand Central Infrastructure that we All Shall Use.
Why is this nonsense being posted at a supposedly libertarian blog and not being refuted? Are any of you actually familiar with for example Austrian economics which long ago debunked central planning?
Or is space made of magic pixie dust that revokes the laws of economics as soon as we leave the atmosphere?