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.
Andy USA - 12/5/2008 7:01 PMQuoteNathan - 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.Shuttles are mainly reusable, apart from the ET.
I'd like to suggest that we make a distinction between REFUELALE and REUSABLE craft in this thread. There are many missions that rely on one-shot equipment that can benefit from a LEO refueling depot. There have been many discussions on the merit (or lack there-of) of reusable craft, as pointed out already. I think we should focus this thread on the question of how refueling craft once in (or beyond) LEO can impact the various missions under consideration.
Also, IMHO the word "should" has very little meaning in the context of space operations. The only "should" that applies is that the best engineering solution "should" be the one that is selected for any particular mission.
Dean