What is Digg?14 Comments
- sensor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11That's getting old.
- REXNFX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Astro refuels the satellites via "robotic arm"...very cool. Now what refuels Astro?
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ship: "This is space crusier zeta5, sorry about that fuel explosion"
Astro: Ruh Roh Rorge! - allyant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Still no starships?
- garfielduk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Leroy?
- mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Too bad TPTB are so short sighted they'd rather waste money on this, than developing the infrastructure which let's us send gas-station attendants into orbit.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What do you mean "here we come"?
The Soviets put weapons in space YEARS ago, and in many instances far ahead of the United States.
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/russia/kosmoplan.htm - didgital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Refueling is not done via the arm. The author of the article must have felt it necessary to include that info somewhere, and they put it in a misleading spot. The arm is on the spacecraft to monitor activities with the camera and also to transfer representative electronics to the other spacecraft (which would demonstrate the ability to further "repair" another satellite).
Refueling is done via a mechanical fluid coupling that extends out from Astro to NextSAT. The big deal is that only the Russkies could do this before, and their method was a "one-shot" design. Orbital Express was designed in a way that could do this multiple times. Granted, we're just now proving this technology, where our comrades have been doing this for years.... - sh0rtbus56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0space weapons here we come!
*puts on tinfoil hat* - HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"ASTRO, short for Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations..."
Oh come on, we've been in space for how long now, and "Astro" is the best name they could come up with?
How about Autonomous Funky Refuling Operations? - jcardin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I strongly agree that a government-sponsored fuel depot on-orbit would be a great national asset. Government applications aside, it would be boon to the commercial development of space. Propellant represents a large mass fraction of any satellite. Launching with little or no propellant would reduce mass dramatically. The entire structure of the spacecraft could be simple and lightweight. Satellites capable of a wide variety of missions would be light enough to launch on smaller, less costly launch vehicles. This would effectively reduce the cost of access to space which is the key enabling factor in commercial applications. The imagination and creativity of the private sector would finally be unleashed to develop the full potential of space.
- Heftyjo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NASA should have been working on this technology a long time ago instead of continuing to focus on big dumb boosters that fly 1-2 times a year. If they put a refueling depot on orbit they could offer contracts to private space enterprises to deliver the fuel. This would open up a market to private space and encourage investor support. Then, we could build Earth departure stages and Lunar/Martian landers on-orbit using existing launchers. Then, fuel them up at the depot and send them out to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
- Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Would you have preferred Soviet Russia?
- Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5I for one welcome our new autonomous satellite refueling overlords. It's a skill they're going to need if they're going to take over the world!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is