Is Nasa really planning on Building a fuel station on the Moon?

Answer 1

NASA at the present time is merely planning another Moon trip to conduct experiences for their plans for the long journey to Mars which will require 6 months at the least. As far as a "fuel station" I have never heard any such news and I keep-up with the space program each week because I have an uncle who works there as an auronautical engineer. Much of what he doesn't say remains unspoken because the info is "classified"...but he never mentioned anything about a fuel reserve...which in itself sounds ridiculous because, WHY would they build one THERE where no one will be around to USE it?? But they are making plans for another Moon Landing to conduct experiements that will be conducted on Mars in the time to come.

Answer 2

Not exactly planning, but considering the possibility. Some scientists have suggested that there may be ice in permanently shadowed craters at the Moon's poles. If that is true, then that ice could be used to make rocket propellant. So NASA is working on probes to determine, once and for all, if there really is ice at the poles on the Moon, and if there is, how much is there. But it is to early to actually plan on building a fuel station yet.

Answer 3

There is no real reason to building a fuel station on the moon. It takes longer to get there, and then you have a gravity well to fight to get back off. True, it's only 1/6 the gravity earth has, but it is still an obstacle to overcome.

It wouldn't be any cheaper to build there than it orbit. In orbit, no gravity well to overcome. It would make much more sense to build an orbiting fuel station. I hope NASA understands this, even if some politicians don't.

Answer 4

If they find enough water. H2O can be broken down into Hydrogen, which is rocket fuel.

Here is also the idea of using Helium-3 as rocket fuel. There is very little of it on the Earth, but there is a lot of it in the Solar Wind. Since the moon is airless, it has been collecting solar wind for quite a long time. One of the problems with helium-3 is that no one has built a practical fusion reactor yet.

However, a helium-3 reactor should, in theory, be cheaper and easier to build than the fusion reactors that we are currently working with, and it would emit less radiation. Earth's energy needs would be met for thousands of years (in theory).

Answer 5

Randy G...do you really don't know what you're talking about do you? Now someone needs to leave an answer to undo that crap you just filled this guy's head with. I felt like I was watching the Jay Leno show when they ask a simple question and see how many people screw it up! First of all...and H3 reactor IS a fusion reactor. However i believe what you are referring to is a deuterium oxide reactor (cold fusion). Deuterium Oxide is more commonly known as "heavy water."

Answer 6

Yes, and I can't belive that they are. Didn't you know thet the moon is almost 62% flamable. If they put a fuel station there it could erupt into a flaming mass of history!

Answer 7

the finished element is as a thanks to assert to the Russians whats up lookup the following, wanna come!! That my opinion anyhow. that's all politics nasa people want there legacy to go in the historic previous books. and if bush were given this executed improve for the republicans. Persionaly we ought to continually fix the themes the following earlier we go and convey them into the universe.

Answer 8

I've heard it's a possibility. Just think, after they burn a bunch of fuel to get there, they could gas up and go even FARTHER.

Answer 9

Our president has mentioned it, however stopping off at the moon is conterproductive for spaceflight.

Answer 10

Yes but only for hybrid vehicles.