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."

8 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 thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Informative

      collect more energy than those on Earth

      They collect (1366/1006)*(24/6) times more energy (5.46x). To be economically viable, hey can't be more than 5.46x more than ground based systems that are currently under $1/watt, so you have to put a system in place for about $4-5wp. Good luck.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. Re:What for? by bitingduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fiber isn't that useful on a boat in the middle of the ocean.

  2. 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.

  3. Re:Collecting Money Is For Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you hear about the group of cows that NASA wanted to send into low earth orbit?

    It was the herd shot round the world.

  4. Re:How about moving from corporate welfare... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, because absolutely no good has come from NASA, ever. Absolutely no materials science or technology that allows for more efficient food production to "feed the children". Definitely not things like weather satellites or GPS - those are complete boondoggles that have absolutely no effect on modern agriculture.

    People like you would still have us using oxen to plow fields, and then bitch that so many still go hungry.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.