Analyst - 20/4/2008 1:32 PM{snip}And why didn't have anybody else this idea?
Nathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.
A_M_Swallow - 21/4/2008 9:33 AMQuoteNathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.Hopefully but do remember that the reusable Space Shuttle is being replaced by an expendable Ares-I. NASA suspects that launching the Ares-I will be cheaper.
Nathan - 20/4/2008 3:01 AMAnd not just NASA - but all nations, groups, companies etc. They should all be building refuelable systems.
Spacenick - 26/4/2008 3:00 PMWhat would be interesting to know is how much fuel something like ATV would need to get 25 mT to the moon. I mean could one use 25 tons in LEO to get another 25 tons launched seperately into lunar Orbit, I think it should be possible at least when using Ion propulsion and big solar arrays like SMART-1 did, it would take to long for humans but it should be very easy way to get a lander, cargo or even abse modules to the moon for cheap, maybe such a Ion propulsion tug could do it even more than once, than one could take 50 mT to the moon with just 3 Ariane 5 launches that would be by far the cheapest solution.
hmh33 - 12/5/2008 2:58 AMSomething you may not be considering-- Xenon propellant runs about $10m per tonne at the moment, and I believe world annual production is in the range of 2 tonnes.
Nathan - 21/4/2008 4:05 AMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 21/4/2008 9:33 AMQuoteNathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.Hopefully but do remember that the reusable Space Shuttle is being replaced by an expendable Ares-I. NASA suspects that launching the Ares-I will be cheaper.Space shuttle can't really be considered refuelable. Reusable is even a push. It's just easier to refurbish than build fresh.