Author Topic: ULA claim gap reducing solution via EELV exploration master plan  (Read 205163 times)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
VI I I. Summary

Seen from a functional standpoint the exploration of Near Earth Objects, the moon, Mars and high 􀂨V maneuvering in Earth orbit depends on our mastering the art of moving cryogenic propellants around and keeping them in place. This technology is foundational. No serious Lunar or Mars architecture can avoid depots and indeed the vehicles that will be going to and from Mars are effectively depots in transit.

We believe that the our nation􀂶s pride should not be based in having a rocket with the biggest launch mass, but in having an integrated system that can do things no one else can even consider and do it affordably. This is the tradition of our aerospace industry since its inception- to accomplish new things by embracing new approaches irrespective of how strange they may seem relative to the past. By combining proven technology with new thinking, we can accomplish tasks that are presently beyond consideration. If we insist on simplistic, brute-force methods and deliberately avoid innovation we run a very good chance of creating systems which are obsolete on their first day.

The depot architecture is shown to be a flexible and capable system- able to economically address crewed exploration needs including lunar surface habitation, next generation interplanetary probes, direct injection of heavy geostationary satellites and ultimately the crewed exploration of Mars. It anticipates the task of removing derelict spacecraft by providing an infrastructure to permit these high 􀂨V missions and enables the likely new paradigm of removing a spacecraft for each one deployed.. It is optimal for engaging with new entrants and provides a practical way for all nations to cooperatively support high intensity planetary exploration.

The widely touted heavy lift approach is burdened by an extensive development program whose structure suggests a rocky road ahead. Once completed at a cost over twice that of a depot system, it is relegated to launch rates that are at best 25% of the rate anticipated with depots. All heavy lift missions are unique. These require a substantial overhead for mission design and the costly attentions of thousands of engineers. In a depot system, 80% of launches are identical and contain no unique equipment, lack even a payload, and are bound for the same location. In the end, a heavy lift system can only economically perform the highest-level exploration tasks. It is simply not in the running for addressing any other tasks due to its size, cost, organizational entanglements.

The U.S. industry is increasingly under pressure from international suppliers of launch services. Given that these efforts are hugely subsidized and often a matter of national pride, it is highly unlikely that our industry will be able to compete directly for these entry-level services. By implementing the proposed depot infrastructure, we can actually leverage these new low-cost suppliers as propellant suppliers. Nearly every supplier yearns for business and launch prices are disconnected from actual costs and reasonable business behavior. Delivering propellant creates a market that many entities can supply. It would engage the world community in supporting visionary exploration efforts and the mundane task of cleaning up decades of space junk. The propellant demands are so large that U.S. industry would still be a major player in the LEO delivery task. U.S. launchers with more sophisticated upper stages such as ACES would perform L2 propellant transfers and the high-value satellite emplacement and retirement activities. Effectively, the high-cost U.S. industrial base would address more sophisticated, non-routine and more mission-critical activities. The depot architecture helps all players become and stay winners.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2010 08:14 AM by marsavian »

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Zegler and Kutter just came out with a new paper:

"Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation Architecture" (AIAA 2010-8638)

Emphasis is still on a permanently manned Lunar station supplied by depots, with a long discussion on extensibility to Mars, including a new Mars Transfer Vehicle design based on a paired cluster of 6 ACES-121's each, connected by a passageway and rotated to provide artificial gravity.

No mention of Lunar ISRU, but ISRU apparently is implied by the proposed Mars vehicle. It would require 1,400 tons of propellant at L2. Even if the propellant was launched entirely with 3rd-world, government subsidized launch providers, it would cost something on the order of $20 billion USD just to launch all the propellant. They say the ongoing cost of the Lunar station would be on the order of $3 to $4 billion USD per year; if you figure ISS keeps flying indefinitely for $2 billion USD per year, that leaves $3 to $4 billion USD per year for Mars operations. Thus just to pay for the propellant would take at least 5 years if the propellant were to launched entirely from Earth.

And this one by some Jon Goff that hangs out here at nsf!

http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/PropellantDepots2009.pdf

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Eventually, the sheer weight of a great idea always carries the day.

Thank you Warren.  Wait a second.  I didn't say anything...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Zegler and Kutter just came out with a new paper:

"Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation Architecture" (AIAA 2010-8638)

* * *

No mention of Lunar ISRU, but ISRU apparently is implied by the proposed Mars vehicle.

Actually, there is mention of lunar ISRU:

Quote
In short, L2 is an ideal location to store propellants and cargos: it is close, high energy, and cold. More importantly, it allows the continuous onward movement of propellants from LEO depots thus suppressing their size and effectively minimizing the near-earth boiloff penalties. In short, L2 is an ideal location to store propellants and cargos: it is close, high energy, and cold. More importantly, it allows the continuous onward movement of propellants from LEO depots thus suppressing their size and effectively minimizing the near-earth boiloff penalties. Should industrial production of propellants on the moon take place, L2 is optimally placed to put these propellants to work.



EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline agenttokyo

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Someone @ NASA is thinking we need to get cryogenic fuel storage on orbit after all?  Looks like they are seeking a technology demonstrator...

--snip--
Mission Goals
Demonstrate long duration, in-space storage of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen cryogenic propellants.
Demonstrate in-space transfer of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen cryogenic propellants.
--snip--

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=267603/Cryostat%20Studies%20BAA%2004222011.pdf

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
The organisers of this propellant depot may wish to have a talk with their potential clients such as Project Morpheus.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Zegler and Kutter just came out with a new paper:

"Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation Architecture" (AIAA 2010-8638)

Emphasis is still on a permanently manned Lunar station supplied by depots, with a long discussion on extensibility to Mars, including a new Mars Transfer Vehicle design based on a paired cluster of 6 ACES-121's each, connected by a passageway and rotated to provide artificial gravity.

No mention of Lunar ISRU, but ISRU apparently is implied by the proposed Mars vehicle. It would require 1,400 tons of propellant at L2. Even if the propellant was launched entirely with 3rd-world, government subsidized launch providers, it would cost something on the order of $20 billion USD just to launch all the propellant. They say the ongoing cost of the Lunar station would be on the order of $3 to $4 billion USD per year; if you figure ISS keeps flying indefinitely for $2 billion USD per year, that leaves $3 to $4 billion USD per year for Mars operations. Thus just to pay for the propellant would take at least 5 years if the propellant were to launched entirely from Earth.

I believe the time has come to revisit the material in this:
 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940004970_1994004970.pdf[/size][/u][col[/color]or=#0000ff][color=#0000ff][/size][/color][/url][/color][/color]
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9628
  • Likes Given: 299

I believe the time has come to revisit the material in this:
 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940004970_1994004970.pdf[/size][/u][col[/color]or=#0000ff][color=#0000ff][/size][/color][/url][/color][/color]

was never a viable idea and this is a ULA thread.

Online Chris Bergin

Move and bump to the HLV section (But please "report to mod" this thread if you think it should go in US launchers - if I get more than five "reports" I'll move it).

Tags: