Slashdot Mirror
Robotic Refueling Experiment Set Up On Space Station
coondoggie writes "The idea that the International Space Station could be used as a port-of-call for passing satellites that need fuel or repairs took one step closer to reality as NASA astronauts set up the robotic experiment in orbit today. The Robotic Refueling Mission structure will ultimately be attached to the ISS' infrastructure. Once up and running, it will show that remote-controlled robots can perform refueling tasks in orbit, using commands sent from controllers on Earth."
If we're developing satellites that can move to the ISS' orbit, dock with it, be refueled robotically, then go back to their own orbits, why not develop a robotic fueling station so we don't have to put right next to the ISS a giant ball of fuel (whether combustible or pressurized) that attracts every wonky satellite with a taste for juice?
$4 million a gallon space gas - I thought I had it bad!
The space station and the satellites they're talking about don't orbit anywhere near each other. Most satellites are in geostationary orbit much, much higher than the station, which orbits the earth about fifteen times a day.
Any refuelling station would need an orbit much like the satellites it's supposed to service. That would probably mean launching up a big ol' gas can of a station, by weight mostly fuel, up to geostationary orbit or else ever so slightly higher, and using it to refuel until it itself runs out of fuel, then deorbiting it to burn up and launching another. If it's built right then the cost of the mechanism will be negligible relative to the service it provides.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
...small private companies to set up just outside of orbit to squeegie a satellite's solar panels whether they want it or not and expect a few million in change.
The orbits are wrong, there would be no benefit to attaching the real system to ISS. It would probably actually cost MORE to do it that way.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fill up here! Last gas until Alpha Centauri!
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
Want to see some people walk around on Mars? Go watch a fucking movie.
I'd rather watch a live feed on television. Wouldn't you?
there would be no benefit to attaching the real system to ISS
Assuming you meant *no* benefits, I can point to at least 1 benefit in terms of PR.
Instead of saying "We have advanced the ISS into a multipurpose space station we can say "We have both the International Space Station as well as the Robotic Refueling Station. We have taken the second firm step towards actualizing our new mission in space."
Yeah it may be costlier, but if you can get past the costs phase, the PR benefits of declaring we can and WILL build large structures in space would be immeasurable. And no, despite the usefulness of satellites and telescopes, I'm pretty sure if you ask Average Joe which is cooler/requires more science between satellites, telescopes, and space stations, they'll say the space station.
Whereas a non-average Jim might say it depends on the type of satellite/telescope/space station.
This is cheap to do. Many experiments can be done and the software developed. Keep in mind that it is the FULLY DEBUGGED software that is worth a lot.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ok, so Armadillo passed on their VTVL to NASA and both NASA and armadillo continues to enhance it. What will it gain them? A cargo lifter from earth to about 100 miles up. So, where can that go? To the moon and Mars. However, once there, they will need fuel. How to do it? From space. Originally, all the fuel will come from earth. Once time passes on, then it will come from lunar and martian surface. But not right away. So, auto re-fueling in space is useful for MANY things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because robotic refueling station sounds better -- by which I mean more likely to be funded -- than fueling station for the manned mission to Mars.
The larger problem is... even if this works, who's going to set up the robotic station?
I mean, we could launch it from something and have it try to take orbit robotically... but that means it has to be all pre-assembled or self-assembling without error.
Or we could count on the *coughlaughcough* russian rockets to get people up there to service the refueling station. Since, you know, the US has royally fucked up their space program and are now in the mode of "well we think the private sector will do it better" republicanism... nevermind the fact that no private entity has even gotten a monkey or a dog, let alone a human, into orbit.
Exactly the first thought that I had when I saw this.
Step 1) Install a big gas tank on the ISS
Step 2) Watch the ISS and ship being refueled turn into a giant fireball due to a glitch
Step 3) Create the first orbital funeral home
Profit!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
What this amounts to is the U.S. putting up yet another multinational financial obligation then abandoning it's commitment to same said obligation.
Seems to be a theme lately.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
It should at least have this capability shouldn't it? It can be in higher orbit on its own but should be able to dock with ISS so we can launch a mission to replace ISS crew and refuel this refueling robot in one mission before it moves back to its original orbit. Seems like that could be an efficient way of running it. If nothing else, it needs to be able to dock with ISS to be repaired and for maintenance surely?
And it's easier to sell to owners of satellites etc thus getting support for ISS (financial and otherwise).
That's part of research the station was originally built for: it is different issue where ACTUAL refueling station will be but this research&development part is clearly where ISS could&should be used for.
you mean those dodgy Russians that got a man into space before you? put a probe on another planet before & even the moon before the US?
hell, the same Russians that have pioneered space tourism before the almighty USA!? I think Russians are better at space than what the Americans are.
What we really need to do, is come up with a fueling station that just requires water & solar (or nuclear) energy,
input water, use the electricity to split it up into hydrogen and oxygen, compress and cool (using more energy). = conventional rocket fuel.
id say nuclear power would produce a better fueling station because of the energy density, but that requires replacing the nuclear fuel, and i don't think the government likes the idea of any country rocketing fission material above everyone's heads. but if we could master this, global long distance transport would be just a matter of finding available water.
ISS' infrastructure
ISS's infrastructure
Well, the actual plan is develop satellites that can maneuver up to other satellites and fuel them in situ. TFA, as with most science 'journalism' gets it wrong.
The answer for why this needs to be attached to the space station is because it's making use of Dextre, the very large/expensive/awesome robotic arm attached to the ISS. The initial experiments may also likely need a human finely controlling the robotic arm or conducting extra-vehicular activities to set things up. There's some more details in this article.
It also wasn't mentioned in the summary, but a big part of why this is so challenging is that the tech is ultimately intended for satellites which weren't immediately designed to be refueled. There's a -lot- of old satellites out there with their fuel supplies winding down, and this could be potentially useful for quite a few of them.
The idea that the International Space Station could be used as a port-of-call for passing satellites that need fuel or repairs took one step closer to reality as NASA astronauts set up the robotic experiment in orbit today.
Really a good news, I also recommends this crystal jewelry online shop for you!
The one great thing about space is that once you get there, even low earth orbit, it doesn't take much more fuel to maneuver.
Setup a few different fuel depots. Have tanker bots shuttle it between orbits. Then have repair robots and their detachable tanks rendezvous with the tankers. A repair boats would consists of at least two robots, a fuel tank and repairing instruments and parts.
This way is full of redundancy. And as a side benefit broken parts can be ferried to the ISS for repair. Ideally your would want at least a dozen repair boats stationed in different orbits to minimize fuel consumption for travel between orbits and redundancy for failing units.
What we really need to build in space in a solar power plant and a manufacturing foundry. If we could build and recycle in space it would be a lot more efficient.
.. especially now that there is no more Space Shuttle
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Incidentally, that kind of experiment/investment is one of the technologies that Obama's plan for NASA listed. He may not have wanted to invest in another pork-ridden wagon like the space shuttle, but Obama certainly did have his head on straight when he put together his new goals and new vision for NASA. (I should mention, I suspect Obama didn't develop a lot of these goals himself, but, rather, probably had a well-informed advisor guiding him).
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Afaik, MDA is working on just that. http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/110318intelsat-signs-for-mdas-satellite-refueling-service.html
Why not build multiple ISS stations for longer journeys like a gas station with emergencies and fuel ... so we can build highways to mars and moon and back...