Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StygaiAsshai t1_j6vvoco wrote

Reply to comment by Benjilator in Investigations reveal more evidence that Mimas is a stealth ocean world by entered_bubble_50

Maybe in the future we can use that instead of taking water from Earth for space exploration supplies.

23

Benjilator t1_j6weroo wrote

Water is a side product of so many chemical processes that as far as I know there should not be any shortage. Usually water can be fully recycled without worries anyways.

34

John_B_Clarke t1_j6wtuic wrote

Every drop of water on a space station has been carried there by humans in some form or other. And every gram of hydrogen and oxygen that are expended as rocket fuel in interplanetary space is pretty much nonrecoverable.

9

bucolucas t1_j6x2ikw wrote

Read up about fuel cells. They were used on Apollo and the space shuttle.

2

John_B_Clarke t1_j6xqvgy wrote

All the hydrogen and oxygen in those fuel cells was carried into space on top of a Saturn V. And it all burned up when the Service Module reentered. It is no longer available in space. And in any case, Apollo did not go to interplanetary space.

Read up about orbital mechanics.

−4

bucolucas t1_j6xroxz wrote

Orbital mechanics has nothing to do with useful chemical processes that result in water production.

5

John_B_Clarke t1_j6xs5wy wrote

OK, what "useful chemical process" makes water out of hard vacuum.

3

IfIRepliedYouAreDumb t1_j6y1tc4 wrote

Why are you fixated on hard vacuum when Hydrogen and Oxygen are readily available

0

Science-Compliance t1_j6y8lh5 wrote

Because anything you do in space needs to account for the fact that you're floating in a void with essentially nothing around you but radiation. The materials have to come from somewhere, and you need to consider orbital mechanics to get from one body to another in space.

2

IfIRepliedYouAreDumb t1_j6yurh3 wrote

They’re literally not talking about that lol

The conversation is about getting water through chemical processes while mining asteroids

Try and keep up 👍

0

John_B_Clarke t1_j6yysr4 wrote

Only in your mind. This started with the utility of water on Ganymede for space exploration. Nobody said anything about "mining asteroids".

4

Science-Compliance t1_j6z2ro9 wrote

Someone mentioned using Ganymede as a gas station. Try and keep track. 👎

0

IfIRepliedYouAreDumb t1_j6z2ylu wrote

See how clear things are when you re-read things properly?

0

Science-Compliance t1_j6z3txc wrote

You don't have the privileged position to be making such condescending comments, and you still don't seem to understand the context of my and another person's comments. You should work on your own reading comprehension because you still don't seem to get it.

2

IfIRepliedYouAreDumb t1_j6z43cu wrote

Ironic how you’d be better off if you took your own advice huh

But then again your lack of reading skills is why we are here so I don’t have my hopes up 😞

0

Science-Compliance t1_j6z4rso wrote

If you don't understand why Ganymede isn't a good general purpose gas station for space travel to other places in the solar system, then you really need to do a lot more reading than simply in this comment section.

1

IfIRepliedYouAreDumb t1_j6z517c wrote

I honestly don’t know if you realize how funny you are XD and that makes it 10x funnier

Keep being yourself I’ll read your comments when I need a laugh 😂

0

uglyspacepig t1_j6y5qas wrote

Fuel cells generate electricity. They're not used for propulsion.

1

John_B_Clarke t1_j6yyaec wrote

Doesn't matter what they were used for, they didn't magically produce water from vacuum. The hydrogen and oxygen were carried from Earth on the spacecraft.

0

uglyspacepig t1_j702ggw wrote

You're very confused. You're attacking points no one made and going off on tangents that are not relevant

2

uglyspacepig t1_j6y64s4 wrote

Largely irrelevant. Any small body we decide to visit out past Mars has huge deposits of either hydrated minerals, ice, or has other compounds that can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen.

2

TheMurku t1_j6w7qxy wrote

Why would we need to ship it?

Hydrogen + Carbon Dioxide put through the Sabatier process produce Water and Methane.

7

StygaiAsshai t1_j6xpo5v wrote

Im talking about just going to the moons as gas stations.

1

TheMurku t1_j6xqcld wrote

'supplies' made me think you were referring to Life Support.

Apologies.

Seeing 'getting to orbit is halfway to anywhere' in Solar System terms what you suggest is absolutely the goal. It's called 'in-situ resource utilization', or ISRU. Water as a Reaction Mass (either as itself in NTRS or as a source of hydrogen) is the core material ISRU will seek.

3

danielravennest t1_j6xzv3i wrote

ISRU is NASA's obfuscation of "space mining", because it would confuse congresspeople who come from mining states. Actual mining engerineers just call it space mining.

1

Benjilator t1_j6werwb wrote

Water is a side product of so many chemical processes that as far as I know there should not be any shortage. Usually water can be fully recycled without worries anyways.

6

danielravennest t1_j6xy7x2 wrote

There's plenty of water already in space. Some nearby asteroid types contain up to 20% water and carbon compounds. The carbon compounds typically have hydrogen, and that can be combined with mineral oxides (most rocks) to make more water.

Beyond the "frost line" in the middle of the asteroid belt, water can survive in a low-g vacuum environment, so there is lots and lots of water as water and ice.

Besides, most rocket launches produce more water than they can carry as payload. They take oxygen from the air and burn it with hydrocarbons. The exhaust is CO2 and water.

3

Science-Compliance t1_j6y9u19 wrote

The exhaust from a rocket is basically unusable as a source of water for astronauts. Every drop of water you take from the exhaust, too, would be reducing the rocket's efficiency. In order for that rocket to work, you need all those combustion products to fly out the back of the nozzle at high speed. Anything you put in the exhaust stream that is attached to the ship is going to reduce the effective thrust of the rocket (assuming it doesn't just melt first). You'd be better off just already having a water storage tank on the spacecraft, but then we get back to the original problem.

1

danielravennest t1_j6yc2bv wrote

I was responding to the "taking water from Earth" part of the previous comment. The exhaust from a rocket launch to orbit stays in the atmosphere.

(I've done space systems engineering for 45 years now, so I do understand how rockets work).

1

Science-Compliance t1_j6z398j wrote

I think it was kind of unclear how you meant that last paragraph in the context of the broader discussion, but clarification noted.

2