Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA 'Moving On' From Low-Earth Orbit (arstechnica.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-not-you-it's-them dept.

An anonymous reader writes: NASA has issued a warning to private space companies: the agency is moving on from its focus on low-Earth orbit. William Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight, said, "We're going to get out of ISS as quickly as we can. Whether it gets filled in by the private sector or not, NASA's vision is we're trying to move out." This leaves a void for the private companies building rockets to supply the ISS. "NASA says it would like to see the private space industry "take over" low-Earth orbit, although it acknowledges that any successor space station or orbiting module will be far smaller than the $140 billion space station, a collaboration between 15 countries. The message from NASA to the US industry is simple: we're serious about the commercialization of low-Earth orbit, we have this marvelous facility available with unique capabilities, and we want you to use the heck out of it."

6 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. What for? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a nice idea: commercial space exploration. But what are commercial, for-profit companies supposed to do in LEO? Space tourism, maybe some very specific R&D that requires freefall, but other than that?

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:What for? by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sun-tracking systems can get higher capacity factors than 25%, you're being pessimistic with your earth figures and optimistic with your space figures ;)

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    2. Re:What for? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about using LEO as a jumping off/assembly point? Obviously a lot of companies are interested in exploiting possible resources in space. By using a structure in LEO, couldn't you maximize efficiency by pre-launching supplies and materials in a way that maximizes payloads and reduces the number of launches necessary? Take the ISS and modify it to store consumables such as food, water, and fuel, and then send up any vehicles in stages for assembly and stocking in orbit. A small crew stationed on the ISS can assemble everything, then either use them to man the mission or send up a final flight with crew and any last minute cargo (experiments, low stock items or perishables, any needed spare parts, etc). Obviously I am not well versed on the economy of space launches, but it stands to reason that there a point where the ratio between cost and mass is most efficient, and this would allow you to harness that efficiency.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  2. Re:Not a lot of commercial use cases. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There really is not much reason for private industry to go to LEO unless it's to support NASA.

    Also zero gravity ball bearings, art, biology research in 30 categories, preparing to exploit asteroids, crystal growth, cosmic rays, satellite deployment, communications research, nanotechnology, metallurgy, geology, and advertising.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  3. Fantastic! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is actually great news for many who were pro-space exploration.

    After their wildly successful lunar missions, NASA got stuck in LEO decades ago and has never been able to escape. It's continuously drained all of their money and talent into stationkeeping for the US military and corporations and eliminated the possibility of human exploration in space.

    Ultimately, I think this is just gamesmanship. The government won't let NASA completely abandon LEO, it's really a strategic asset. However, they may have to cough up more funding or split the agency to support both LEO efforts and actual space exploration. That is likely what NASA wants.

  4. Actually this is a good idea. by CaptnCrud · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The less red tape needed to just use the thing the more use it will get. Part of the reason the ISS is so ridiculously over budgets is because of all the BS redundancy and BS "safe" tech high-pork approach (as in, scared to use fancy new things like "kevlar" and "carbon fiber", or scary words like "inflatables"....but lets keep using laptops from 15 years ago because they are COTS approved.).

    As someone who used to work there, all I can say is NASA is often NASA's worst enemy....budget issues aside.