Author Topic: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015  (Read 15325 times)

Offline CitabriaFlyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« on: 06/28/2011 11:44 pm »
ACES based propellant depot architecture can be used for purposes of exploration.  Establishing such depots might provide an early mission for heavy launchers without large sums for payload development.  Such depots might improve the economics for the production of medium launch vehicles which are critical to our nations military and scientific capabilities.   But what is the point of developing ACES based depots if there are no immediate plans for systemic BEO exploration and if you insist on a heavy launch vehicles for rare BEO missions in might not even be worth it to develop propellant depots?  The purpose of this thread is to generate business ideas which could support propellant depots as soon as possible.

1)  Clearing space debris.
2)  KCRQ-1701.  This is the military version ACES.  It would carry no weapons but it would have the ability to fly up to an aggressor satellite and nudge it.  Or perhaps just station keep in front of an aggressor satellite's sensor suite or communications antenna in order to impede its function.  Is a spacecraft used in this fashion considered a weapon?  Is such interferance an act of war?  What are potential tactics?  If nothing else could this be a good thesis for Air War College?

If depots were available in 2015 how else might they be used? 

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #1 on: 06/29/2011 12:01 am »
{snip}

If depots were available in 2015 how else might they be used? 

Bigger satellites to GEO.  The EELV is launched fully loaded and empties its tanks achieving LEO and docking.  The propellant depot refills the tanks permitting the upper stage to fly the satellite to GEO.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #2 on: 06/30/2011 05:04 pm »
{snip}

If depots were available in 2015 how else might they be used? 

Bigger satellites to GEO.  The EELV is launched fully loaded and empties its tanks achieving LEO and docking.  The propellant depot refills the tanks permitting the upper stage to fly the satellite to GEO.

If GEO sats were more accessible, they could be designed to be amenable to upgrades and repairs. Presently the paradigm is design, build, launch and discard.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #3 on: 06/30/2011 06:16 pm »
To extend on Swallow's point fuel depots would increase the capacity of existing rockets.  A rocket that refuels in LEO would be able to take the fuel payload to GEO.

To extend on Hops point a fuel depot would allow for refueling of any reusable spacecraft.  That includes exploration spaceships, like the Nautilus, repair spacecraft, like MDA's refuel spacecraft, and inspection spacecraft, like the Mitex inspection spacecraft, and even future satellite offense and defensive systems.


Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #4 on: 06/30/2011 06:38 pm »
Once upon a time gasoline was sold in pint jars through drug stores...

Then the automobile came along.

Demand creates new ideas creates desire creates opportunity creates new demand.

Fuel depots are one of this type of 'enabler' technologies.  Right now, everyone is happy buying their gas by the pint at the drugstore because they don't know how a service station is going to work.  Once fuel depots are established, we'll probably wonder how we ever got along without them, but until we get one up and tested, we won't even know if the concept is viable.

Personally, I feel that the depot concept doesn't gain much from launching the propellant from earth except in the gain in economies of scale for the launch vehicles.  You're still burning significant quantities of fuel to get a smaller quantity of fuel prepositioned.

To me, the best business case for depots involves bringing fuel from sources that extract a much smaller 'launch penalty'.  Unless the depot can provide fuel for less than the cost of sizing up the launch vehicle for the mission, it won't be able to present a viable business case.  After-all, which is cheaper?  4 Falcon 9 launches or 1 Falcon Heavy?

"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #5 on: 06/30/2011 06:56 pm »
Personally, I feel that the depot concept doesn't gain much from launching the propellant from earth except in the gain in economies of scale for the launch vehicles.  You're still burning significant quantities of fuel to get a smaller quantity of fuel prepositioned.

To me, the best business case for depots involves bringing fuel from sources that extract a much smaller 'launch penalty'.  Unless the depot can provide fuel for less than the cost of sizing up the launch vehicle for the mission, it won't be able to present a viable business case.  After-all, which is cheaper?  4 Falcon 9 launches or 1 Falcon Heavy?



Perfect justification for lunar ISRU for oxygen production from the rigoleth. LH2 is light and does not extract much penalty from ground launch, but LOX is heavy, extracting the lion's share of the penalty. Creating the lox on the moon and then transporting it to the LEO depot would save the mission architects a ton of money and enable the spacecraft designers to make better use of the launch vehicle performance capacity.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #6 on: 06/30/2011 06:57 pm »
To me I think it is cheaper to use a larger booster than to refuel a smaller one at a depot.  Having said this, I think in flight refueling using a medium launcher is a better idea than developing a 70 to 130 ton booster.

I would like to see a budget expert run the numbers on this.
Danny Deger

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #7 on: 06/30/2011 06:57 pm »
Once upon a time gasoline was sold in pint jars through drug stores...

Then the automobile came along.

Demand creates new ideas creates desire creates opportunity creates new demand.

Fuel depots are one of this type of 'enabler' technologies.  Right now, everyone is happy buying their gas by the pint at the drugstore because they don't know how a service station is going to work.  Once fuel depots are established, we'll probably wonder how we ever got along without them, but until we get one up and tested, we won't even know if the concept is viable.

Personally, I feel that the depot concept doesn't gain much from launching the propellant from earth except in the gain in economies of scale for the launch vehicles.  You're still burning significant quantities of fuel to get a smaller quantity of fuel prepositioned.

To me, the best business case for depots involves bringing fuel from sources that extract a much smaller 'launch penalty'.  Unless the depot can provide fuel for less than the cost of sizing up the launch vehicle for the mission, it won't be able to present a viable business case.  After-all, which is cheaper?  4 Falcon 9 launches or 1 Falcon Heavy?

Fuel depots potential goes far beyond simply getting heavier payloads into space.

However it will most definitely be cheaper than NASA's HLV.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #8 on: 06/30/2011 07:02 pm »
However it will most definitely be cheaper than NASA's HLV.

Emphasis on "NASA" as USA's recent commercial Shuttle bid has shown. If one were to take the "NASA" out of the HLV and let a commercial company operate it, there is actually profit potential there, especially when used in conjunction with (not just propellant) orbiting depots.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #9 on: 06/30/2011 07:22 pm »
However it will most definitely be cheaper than NASA's HLV.

Emphasis on "NASA" as USA's recent commercial Shuttle bid has shown. If one were to take the "NASA" out of the HLV and let a commercial company operate it, there is actually profit potential there, especially when used in conjunction with (not just propellant) orbiting depots.

I concede that simply using a larger commercially available booster would almost always be cheaper than refueling.  As Danny said it make more sense to use a Falcon 9H than 4-5 Falcon 9s. 

However there is a high development and maintenance cost to having rockets.  The most cost-competitive rockets have many customers with high launch rates, so these costs are spread over many customers and many launches. 

The reason why HLV went extinct not just here in the US, but world wide, and why no one else other than NASA is even considering building one is that there does not exist demand great enough to justify the expense of such vehicles.  They have little application beyond NASA's needs.  Even for Constellation the Ares V was expected to have no more than 2 launches per year. 

Fuel depots on the other hand are essentially satellites.  Once you put them up there they last for decades at extremely low maintenance cost.  The costs of fuel depots is incremental. 

Its like the decision to buy a car vs. rent one.  If you are going to use the car everyday for years than it is ultimately cheaper to buy a car.  If you are only planning to use the car for a short period of time or very sparingly than it is ultimately cheaper to rent one.

As far as commercial vs NASA sure savings could be made in the management structure, but they would not be nearly enough.  Even rocket like the Delta IV and the Atlas V struggle with low launch rates. 
« Last Edit: 06/30/2011 07:48 pm by DarkenedOne »

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #10 on: 06/30/2011 07:53 pm »

Fuel depots on the other hand are essentially satellites.  Once you put them up there they last for decades at extremely low maintenance cost.  The costs of fuel depots is incremental. 


That is going to depend on what fuel(s) you are stockpiling at the depot.  Cryogenic fuels are going to be much more difficult to store for extended periods of time whereas non-cryogenic fuels are going to require larger fuel masses to be stockpiled for outgoing missions.

However, I will grant you the 'landed cost' of the physical depot being spread over its lifetime of usage.  My concern is the cost of filling the depot over that lifetime.  Assume we use a Falcon Heavy to launch the fuel, each pound of fuel is going to cost $1,000.00 to send to LEO, figure a 20% margin to cover operating expenses for the depot operation plus profit.  This gives your customers a total cost of $1,200 per pound of fuel.  Your customers are already $200 per pound behind a straight-up launch on the Falcon Heavy.

As said, unless you can provide the fuel at a substantial discount to upsizing the launch vehicle then there will not be a commercial case for making use of the depot. 

As C_Longton said, depots argue strongly for ISRU operations (either Lunar or NEO).

Lets say that (I have no support for these numbers, they're just theoretical) 1/2 of the $1,000 per pound is tied up in fuel costs to lift the 50 tons of fuel.  And lets say that you can come up with an architecture that enables you to acquire fuel at a human expenditure comparable to that of the Falcon Heavy of $500 per pound returned from either Lunar or NEO sources.  A 20% margin means that you sell your fuel for $600.00 per pound, beating the Falcon Heavy cost significantly.

The savings here comes from acquiring your fuel from a Low-G environment and transporting it to LEO with fuel acquired at the same time and rolled into the cost of operations.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #11 on: 06/30/2011 08:53 pm »
The depot could also be used as an entrepot.  The cargo could be launched from Earth on a chemical rocket and transferred to say a solar electric transfer vehicle at the depot.  People could transfer from capsules with heat shields to either long range Mars vehicles or lunar landers.  A spacecraft repair facility could be attached to the depot.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #12 on: 07/01/2011 09:55 am »
What about supporting large robotic expeditions to energetic places like Mercury?

Or would it just be easier to launch on a bigger launcher, say a Falcon Heavy instead of a Falcon 9? (As Danny suggests)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #13 on: 07/01/2011 10:23 am »
What about supporting large robotic expeditions to energetic places like Mercury?

Or would it just be easier to launch on a bigger launcher, say a Falcon Heavy instead of a Falcon 9? (As Danny suggests)

Larger and more frequent! I reckon fuel depots suit continual use or they probably are not cost effective.
Also, I would love to see a largish lunar lander that we intend to use frequently, unmanned for now. Such a lander could become safer than a larger lander with an abort to orbit option because it would have a long flight history and there would be infrastructure already in place when you arrive.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #14 on: 07/01/2011 01:01 pm »
What about supporting large robotic expeditions to energetic places like Mercury?

Or would it just be easier to launch on a bigger launcher, say a Falcon Heavy instead of a Falcon 9? (As Danny suggests)

They are not mutually exclusive.  The robot for Mercury could be lifted by one Falcon Heavy and the propellant by a second Falcon Heavy.

There is of course the mixture - probe on the Falcon 9 (or EELV) and the propellant on the Falcon Heavy.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #15 on: 07/13/2011 04:08 am »
{snip}

If depots were available in 2015 how else might they be used? 

Bigger satellites to GEO.  The EELV is launched fully loaded and empties its tanks achieving LEO and docking.  The propellant depot refills the tanks permitting the upper stage to fly the satellite to GEO.

If GEO sats were more accessible, they could be designed to be amenable to upgrades and repairs. Presently the paradigm is design, build, launch and discard.
I'm resonably sure I've "heard" Jim argue that this is and was never the "paradigm" for Geo-Sats. He was quite vehment about it too :)

Personally, what I'm seeing is that many companies are aware of this point and it's ability to be a major "sea-change" in operations but currently they can't see an economical way to get from where we are now to that point.

How would one go about building, and supporting a business case for this type of paradigm shift?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #16 on: 07/13/2011 06:34 am »
Looks like MDA is going to try.  The bridge they're going for is apparently the capability to refuel a satellite that wasn't designed for it, which needs some tricky robotics:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/sts-135-enabling-new-era-robotic-satellite-refuelling-space/

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #17 on: 07/13/2011 01:25 pm »
Quote from: Cherokee43v6
Right now, everyone is happy buying their gas by the pint at the drugstore because they don't know how a service station is going to work.

As far as the pint jars is concerned, I think you mean snake oil.

But your analogy is incorrect in that everybody knows how the depot should work, even if they don't know exactly the tank size, or the nozzle specifications, or the gas cap diameter, or any of the particulars about how it is going to work.  The problem is that depots don't work because they're not there.  That, and the investment to build them is fairly large.

DP's analogy about renting a car versus buying a car is good, especially when considering the disposable architecture that has essentially dominated the HLV launch mindset.  Remembering that altho shuttle was reusable, it was never improved with respect to turnaround costs, or also issued as a smaller crew only vehicle either.  To put it into the car analogy, it's like renting a Rolls to take your vacation, then junking the Rolls after you're done.  Even rich guys would have a problem with that paradigm.

Quote from: Kelvin
I would love to see a largish lunar lander that we intend to use frequently, unmanned for now.

I agree totally, but the official preference is to avoid incremental improvements, and place big bets on teary eyed future power point presentations of questionable destinations.  There's a time and place for sexiness, and a time and place for going to work five days a week, if I can get vaguely analogous.  Plus, that the incremental growth would also include the infrastructure seems to be a point that's lost in PP space.

That satellite repair gizmo just mentioned is certainly a good idea conceptually, but heck, it sure is complex.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2011 01:30 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #18 on: 07/13/2011 04:50 pm »
Presently the paradigm is design, build, launch and discard.
I'm resonably sure I've "heard" Jim argue that this is and was never the "paradigm" for Geo-Sats. He was quite vehment about it too :)

Cite?

So far as I know, after a Geosat lives its lifespan, it remains a corpse in orbit. If they are indeed being serviced and upgraded, I'd like to know.

Personally, what I'm seeing is that many companies are aware of this point and it's ability to be a major "sea-change" in operations but currently they can't see an economical way to get from where we are now to that point.

How would one go about building, and supporting a business case for this type of paradigm shift?

It seems to me if you want to repair or upgrade a sat, you'd need an Atlas and a Centaur to deliver parts, materials. You'd also need some way to install the parts -- telerobotic hands? And once the repair device accomplished it's mission, where would it get propellant to reach another satellite?

If your going to launch an expendable upper stage to repair a satellite, it makes more sense to use the same stages to send up a replacement satellite.

The case for this paradigm shift doesn't close until we have a less expensive way to deliver propellant to orbit.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Business Case for Propellant Depots in 2015
« Reply #19 on: 07/13/2011 05:41 pm »
{snip}
It seems to me if you want to repair or upgrade a sat, you'd need an Atlas and a Centaur to deliver parts, materials. You'd also need some way to install the parts -- telerobotic hands? And once the repair device accomplished it's mission, where would it get propellant to reach another satellite?

If your going to launch an expendable upper stage to repair a satellite, it makes more sense to use the same stages to send up a replacement satellite.

The case for this paradigm shift doesn't close until we have a less expensive way to deliver propellant to orbit.

Propellant costs less than space rated electronics, so the hope is
cost( 2 * launch + electronics + propellant + share of robot)
is less than cost( 2 * launch + 2 * electronics)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1