SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dubbed the "Cislunar 1,000 Vision," an initiative outlined by American launch provider ULA (United Launch Alliance) foresees a self-sustaining economy that supports 1,000 people living and working in Earth-moon space roughly 30 years from now. The basic outline is to develop re-fueling capability in Earth-moon space, perhaps by propellant made using water extracted from the moon or asteroids. This, in turn, will make it more economically feasible to get to destinations more distant. From the Space.com article:
For example, a rocket could carry just enough fuel to get to low Earth orbit and then refuel its upper stage in space to get a payload to the much more distant geosynchronous transfer orbit.
"I can potentially do that whole mission cheaper if I can get propellant cheap enough in low Earth orbit," Sowers said. George Sowers is vice president of advanced programs for Colorado-based ULA.
The concept stems from an analysis and ongoing technical work by ULA involving a souped-up Centaur rocket stage called ACES (Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage), a tanker called XEUS, and a "kit" that augments an ACES stage, allowing the vehicle to land horizontally on the lunar surface and to be stocked with moon-mined fuel for transport.
Sowers continues:
ULA will solicit proposals for ACES' upper-stage engines, tapping the technologies of aerospace companies such as Aerojet Rocketdyne, XCOR Aerospace and Blue Origin. And the U.S. Air Force is supporting some ACES work under rocket propulsion system contracts, Sowers said.
"There's a lot of activity ongoing," he said, "and we're designing a Vulcan booster to accommodate the ACES upper stage."
Vulcan is ULA's next-generation launch system. [Vulcan Rocket: ULA Unveils New Modular Launch System (Video)]
"Once we have ACES flying, sometime in the early to mid-2020s, we would be in a position to utilize space-provided propellant," Sowers said.
[...] "For the most part, the only potential customers for space-based fuel have been space agencies. But their timelines keep shifting, their budgets keep getting reappropriated and the political will to enable this kind of activity 'gets bogged down in bureaucratic zombie zones,' [mining technologies and robotics provider Dale] Boucher said. [,,,] "the ULA plan enables commercialization in deeper space and provides risk reductions for space-agency-sponsored missions."
Franchises anyone?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 30 2016, @11:07PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @11:16PM
Wireless digital computers have replaced wired analog phones. Not much else has changed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 30 2016, @11:32PM
Not much else has changed.
Easy thing to say if you aren't looking.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday July 01 2016, @12:55AM
Then of course, there's huge demographic changes such as a global slowing down of population growth, and a huge increase in the income and wealth of most of the world. In addition, there has been a great opening of wealth to the common man such as being able to invest in stock markets and similar things.
There have been huge technological changes such as the commercialization of the internet, the world wide web, and a vast sector of global industry and commerce that didn't exist 30 years ago.
I have IRC-chat casually with people from California, Denmark, or Dubai simultaneous while playing a game in the middle of Yellowstone National Park. Such a thing would have been technologically possible, but out of my grasp until the last 15 years.
We've seen a new era of democracy (though it is backsliding these days) with the end of most communism in the world.
I'm only scratching the surface here, but any insistence that things haven't changed is ignoring a lot of change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @01:45AM
All of your examples demonstrate that technology has become cheaper and thus more accessible, but fundamentally very little has changed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 01 2016, @03:13AM
All of your examples demonstrate that technology has become cheaper and thus more accessible, but fundamentally very little has changed.
Even if that were true, that is a huge development just by itself. But I mention the commercialization of both space access and the internet which are more than just a change in cost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday July 01 2016, @03:19AM
It's a bit formulaic.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @04:02AM
When I need to take a shit, I reach for a Tork!
But seriously, electricity changed the world more fundamentally than the internet, because before the internet you already had a telecommunications network you could use to call anyone in the world with a telephone. Radio changed the world more fundamentally than mobile phones, mobile phones are just personal computers with radios, and personal computers are just miniaturized mainframes. Fundamentally we're using all the same technology that existed 60 years ago, it's just smaller and faster and cheaper now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 01 2016, @04:34AM
But seriously, electricity changed the world more fundamentally than the internet, because before the internet you already had a telecommunications network you could use to call anyone in the world with a telephone. Radio changed the world more fundamentally than mobile phones, mobile phones are just personal computers with radios, and personal computers are just miniaturized mainframes. Fundamentally we're using all the same technology that existed 60 years ago, it's just smaller and faster and cheaper now.
Now, we've moved the goalposts from no change at all to not quite as fundamentally changed. Thanks for playing.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 01 2016, @06:56PM
When I need to take a shit, I reach for a Tork!
Thank you for getting the reference in my nickname! Most think I'm a dipshit that doesn't know how to spell 'torque'. I'd rather be known as a dipshit with a shitty nick. :D
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈