Great looking design. 200 "tons" I suppose... not pounds.

Thanks gierla, Precisely, lower costs by increasing supply. Secure the water to sell to the managers of habitats, to the makers of rocket fuel, who in turn sell to miners, who man the spacecraft that bring in the raw material to build the spacecraft and the habitats where people live, where people thrive, and prosper … It’s natural. The free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class, and create lasting prosperity …

Fantastic modeling, as usual. :-) Corrie

great model

Love the concept and model!! I don't think breaking down water to its base elements to get the ingredients for rocket fuel is very efficient unless a massive solar powered facility were available. That comment has absolutely nothing to do with this awesome model and image though. Great work.

skiwillgee, I’m glad you like the model … however I am not sure you understand the concept. Several off-context features of your response lead me to this conclusion. The question occurs: Where would you imagine in the context presented, i.e. an industrial civilization among the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, a more “efficient” alternative means is to be found? Keep in mind the contextual framework surrounding my work has nothing in common with sustainable energy or hydrogen economy arguments. To disambiguate: the contextual framework surrounding my work is grounded in an opposition to the philosophical distortions offered by the proponents of such arguments. Water ice (among other volatiles) is one of the most abundant compounds available in the outer solar system. A growing population situated in this region requires water, oxygen, and hydrogen (among other things – among these being the provision to supply abundant electrical power) in vast quantities – the efficiency of in-situ resource exploitation cannot be rationally denied. It appears you object on grounds of mere “quantity” in regards to the energy requirement – this statement has the appearance of being rooted in currently fashionable notions of energy conservation, (i.e. the false ethic being: that producing less, consuming less, achieving less, being less – in order that mankind present a lesser impact on natural environments – is somehow desirable – I hold the position it is not). Understand that I view the currently fashionable arguments for this notion of conservation as rationally, ethically, and philosophically poisonous. In regards to the energy requirement of water-splitting: energy availability is merely a matter of energy generation. An industrial civilization in the outer solar system would as a matter of course use nuclear power generation. I question your use of the term “efficient” because I suspect it is rooted in the current fashion. A requirement for copious amounts of electrical power certainly does not equate to “inefficiency” – it is merely the requirement to be met. What I found most puzzling is why you would imagine that a “solar powered facility” would be involved in this context at all? Solar power cannot provide useful output at Mars orbit and fails completely beyond. There is a reason probes targeted beyond the orbit of Mars use RTG’s (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators). The intensity of radiation from the Sun is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source – this is known as the inverse-square law. It is basic physics. I would think a fellow posing as one so versed as to comment on efficiency, would (at the very least) understand the basic physics surrounding the applications involved before presuming to critique. Note: Future History Context Links thoughtfully provided.