$330B/year sounds like an inflated marketing number. Wikipedia says there were 92 orbital launches worldwide in 2014. At say an average of say $600 million per launch for launch vehicle and payload combined that's a total of on the order of $55B per year spent on space. I'm guessing the $330B/year figure counts anything that touches space at all, e.g. counting the whole $100/month someone spends on satellite TV as space revenue even though a substantial fraction of that goes to the networks to produce the programming and doesn't really have anything to do with space.
Interesting that the "next 5 years" graphic includes ACES, when we've previously heard that it wouldn't fly until 2023.
Looks like ULA learned from SpaceX' marketing departement.
I have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.
I think that RL-10 is going to get replaced with XCOR due to cost.
Quote from: Dante80 on 11/06/2015 06:32 amI think that RL-10 is going to get replaced with XCOR due to cost. Huh ? That statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: FishInferno on 11/06/2015 12:44 amI have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.Which is extremely cool, and also shows the direction and impulse that Mr Bruno wishes to give to the company.edited for removing OT discussion.
Quote from: Dante80 on 11/06/2015 06:32 amQuote from: FishInferno on 11/06/2015 12:44 amI have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.Which is extremely cool, and also shows the direction and impulse that Mr Bruno wishes to give to the company.edited for removing OT discussion. Or, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 07:53 amOr, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.
Or, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.
Quote from: FishInferno on 11/06/2015 11:51 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 07:53 amOr, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.Both companies are doing the thing that companies in this business have done since before Sputnik. They are offering ideas, concepts, to show the government what they think is possible. It is a shopping list. None of it happens unless it is funded. That includes SpaceX. - Ed Kyle
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
Quote from: su27k on 11/06/2015 03:51 pmFH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4. You do realize where the money comes from, right? Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily. So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.
ULA have been developing their IVF system and in orbit refuel for a few years now. They were hoping NASA would pay for flight testing and maybe fuel depots. The good news ULA seem to be willing to pay for itthemselves, still need a willing customer's mission to flight test these new technologies. If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.
If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/08/2015 05:14 amIf ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.Sort of like Russians have been refueling spacecraft on orbit since Salyut 6 for more than three decades now ?
We continue to study the feasibility and utility. If a demand presents, we'll look at it
What entities is ULA fantasizing will spend $600B more each year in 15 years than they do now? That's 30 times NASA's budget!
Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTaMxmVVAAAoyQ4.jpg:large
What would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path? Cheers, Martin
Quote from: MP99 on 11/10/2015 05:08 amWhat would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path? Cheers, MartinEdit/Lar: De Embed.GEO Satellite servicing from EML1 station. I'm guessing Phase 4 will be building solar powered satellites at EML1 using lunar/asteroid materials and then delivered to GEO
75% of satellite profits come from military contracts...Is someone being charged too much or still GEO based?
Quote from: su27k on 11/06/2015 03:51 pmFH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4. You do realize where the money comes from, right? Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily. So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/06/2015 06:29 pmQuote from: su27k on 11/06/2015 03:51 pmFH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4. You do realize where the money comes from, right? Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily. So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads. - Ed KyleFalse. Of the 5 Falcon Heavy payloads which list a customer, only 1 is US govt. 4 are commercial satellites. The 1 launch which doesn't list a customer is "Falcon Heavy Demo," probably SpaceX internally funded.
In 5 years, I expect most SpaceX launches to be commercial (in this context meaning non-US-govt), as it nearly is now (out of the last 10 launches, 5 are for commercial customers). I hope ULA starts doing more, as well. We've definitely seen evidence of ULA moving in that direction, though I sincerly doubt they'll be doing most of their launches for commercial.
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 11/12/2015 01:48 pmPopulation of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?Don't you think they're going to show some sort of logarithmic growth curve? It's a Malthusian thing: there's only a finite amount of space, and all that....
I envision 3 distinct phases.First, fuel will be brought up from earth as primary and secondary payloads which will be transferred directly to an ACES.Second, fuel will be brought up in the same way, but collected in depots for later transfer to ACES vehicles.Finally, Fuel will be produced on the moon and on NEOs (asteroids) and stored in depots at EML1. ACES vehicles will travel there and tank-up."
Because ACES will have orders of magnitude longer operation time, even without refueling, distributed lift becomes possible. By taking a payload only as far as LEO, then following with a fully fueled ACES, you can take a payload to a final destination that is around 3X heavier than anything possible today with even the Delta Heavy and other heavies to come. (although not be confused with SLS which will be in a class of its own).That same ultra-long duration allows the lifting of huge structures and spacecraft in pieces to be assembled in space.This alone, without refueling, will shatter the one spacecraft - one lift paradigm that has set a limit of what is possible for humanity to accomplish beyond our planet.Refueling:Many rockets go to space with excess capability. Which is to say, the specific spacecraft on a given mission is often less than the maximum capability of that rocket's configuration. That is what allows one to recover a booster. Otherwise, you would not be able to add the extra weight of hardware and unused propellant to fly back with.Initially, we will use that excess capability to bring up propellant in order to refuel previously used ACES. Later, we will produce LOX/LH2 from water mined on the moon and asteroids. At that point, we'll not even need to use our excess capability to lift fuel.Over time, a fleet os ACES "space trucks" will accumulate in orbit, operating indefinitely. This will change what we can do in CisLunar space and how we get to space from earth.We will no longer fly from the surface of the earth to destination orbits. EELVs will only go as far as LEO. ACES will swoop down, pick up the payload, and ferry it to its final destination. For some missions, fully reusable SSTOs will become practical for that first leg to space.There will also be a fleet of ACES able to journey within hours to any other orbit to support activities like satellite servicing.This will allow the construction of enormous structures in space, establishing the infrastructure needed to enable a self-sustaining CisLunar economy and a permanent presence of thousands of men and women living and working off of our planet
60% more satellites to be launched by 2024 vs. past decadeMass to orbit due to increase by 34% between the two decadesIndustry revenues to grow by 21% in the decade
So is Michael Holguin a new spokesperson for ULA? Or has he made presentations like this one previously?
He was replacing someone else that couldn't make it.
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing....which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 12/30/2016 04:05 pmWhat I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.ULA only have limited financial resources, new booster is most critical thing at this stage.
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/29/2016 04:32 amVulcan IOC end of 2019.I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10. In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit. Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.
As for XEUS, there is no urgency on this project. It still needs flight proven ACES and more importantly a market.
Jon do you know if they plan to fly IVF Centuar or wait for ACES.
Well it might interest President Trump if he wants to go back to the Moon but take the private enterprise route. Though SLS & Orion would no doubt pay the cost of this kind of choice.
Quote from: Star One on 12/31/2016 12:16 pmWell it might interest President Trump if he wants to go back to the Moon but take the private enterprise route. Though SLS & Orion would no doubt pay the cost of this kind of choice.To a certain extent it doesn't matter what technology is available for a government return to the Moon, since we proved we could go to the Moon with 60's era technology. It only matters that there is political consensus to fund such an effort, and in order for that to happen there has to be a "national imperative" of some sort - big or small.Which we don't have today, and since any mission to the Moon will require Congressional buy-in, it's unlikely that a Trump interest in the Moon alone will change the current situation.In the meantime though, moving these systems further along will help them become possible solutions for when someone, sometime, wants to go beyond LEO.
The charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000 ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdf
ULA overview slides from last week's CISLunar1000 workshop:QuoteThe charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000 ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdfhttps://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184
The CisLunar Marketplace roadmaps we created identified potential business opportunities near term and a 30-year time span
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/19/2017 05:42 amULA overview slides from last week's CISLunar1000 workshop:QuoteThe charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000 ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdfhttps://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184Quite an 'interesting' take on becoming entrepreneurial in the space marketplace.Imagine Silicon Valley holding workshops on, Internet, The Next Thirty Years in 1980, or Telecommunications, The Next Thirty Years in 1990, or AI, The Next Thirty Years... of course, they'd generate Roadmaps and Cross-Correlation Matricies.QuoteThe CisLunar Marketplace roadmaps we created identified potential business opportunities near term and a 30-year time span
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 12/30/2016 04:05 pmWhat I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.I've never been convinced that ULA is serious about ACES and reuse - because it it always many years in the future, it never seems to get any closer. A certain other company gets a lot of flack for development delays, but this perpetual ACES shift into the future seems to glide under the radar.I want to see ACES. I want to see ULA push forward instead of being caretakers of what they inherited when the company was formed.
ACES is a great idea... ULA should continue moving to build it and see if they come.Not sure SMART reuse can compete.
Quote from: AncientU on 02/21/2017 07:41 amACES is a great idea... ULA should continue moving to build it and see if they come.Not sure SMART reuse can compete.SMART reuse would've been much more compelling had they been able to start developing it 8-9yrs ago when they first started talking about it. As much as I love what ULA is doing with ACES and Vulcan, I still hope we can eventually talk them into powered landing, Xeus-style for Vulcan first stage. It's their call, but I struggle to see how they're going to stay competitive with SpaceX with SMART reuse. It might allow them to better compete with a non-reusable vehicle like Proton or Ariane 6, but seems like an incomplete response to what SpaceX is doing.Admittedly, it would be a lot easier to sell them on full first stage recovery if a) distributed lift was already flying or about to fly, and b) there was at least one small RLV startup delivering low-cost propellant that they could leverage for distributed lift. I say that because most of their payloads are GTO/GEO bound (or modest-sized LEO vehicles), where they should have enough performance with a Vulcan/ACES w/o solids to get the payload to LEO and still have enough prop left on the first stage for at least a barge landing. If they had a cheap way to top the ACES stage back up enough for GTO, they could theoretically then justify a fully-reusable first stage. Though admittedly, until distributed lift refueling maneuvers have been demonstrated successfully many times, some customers may prefer to pay the premium for simpler mission operations.Anyhow, just speaking off the cuff there. But I agree with you that I find ACES far more exciting than SMART.~Jon
Jon,The problem that I see for ULA is by the time that they do smart use in 2023 the majority of the commerical market might be all SpaceX and BO. Remember New Glenn is meant to fly by 2020 and it will have first stage re-use. By 2021, you could have SpaceX and BO doing first stage recovery as the normal part of their business. Smart reuse could end up being the Microsoft phone of 2020 --too little too late. The market has moved on. What is even worse for ULA, if in 2020 SpaceX is launching 20 -30+ times per year, vs a company who is only flying 7- 10 times/years, who will have the lower costs? If I was an investor and looking at 5 year time table - who would you put your money in? ULA is safe only for a few more years. ULA needs to out innovate not just SpaceX but BO.
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 02/21/2017 10:31 pmThey are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/21/2017 11:17 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 02/21/2017 10:31 pmThey are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/21/2017 11:17 pmThey are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?
They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 08:17 pmWhy do you think they are gambling on the competition failing? Why? Because they are not investing in any kind of reuse. (powerpoints don't count) ACES is also years away. Now they are streamlining and slimming down - true - but without significant investment in new technology, they are betting that what they have is sufficient. That doesn't mean they are doomed to fail. Their gamble may actually pay off. But it is still a gamble.
Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 02/22/2017 06:17 amULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.Blue and ULA are already partnering on BE4 why not for distributed launch. Use New Glenn for fuel tanker with Vulcan carrying payload. Allows launches to be days apart.
Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM).
Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit.
So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.
So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing. However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmBruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM).Boeing and Lockheed Martin own ULA, and they are running the way they want, not the way Bruno wants. Let's not forget that. And they can change that anytime they want, but so far they haven't wanted to. ULA is not a victim here.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmLet's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit.I'm assuming you mean SpaceX and Elon Musk. It would be wrong to think that Musk is moving goal posts without his employees knowing anything about what he's saying, since while it's true that they miss schedule dates, they have met the capabilities that Musk advertises. And you can't do that without validating what you're promising BEFORE you promise it.
As to profits, SpaceX has been profitable (for the most part) for years, and Musk has not been supporting SpaceX with funding the way Bezos has. SpaceX is in the business of making a profit, as that is the only way they can afford to pursue their Mars goals.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmSo any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.I don't want to start a debate about "NewSpace" vs "OldSpace", but my definition of "NewSpace" has been that they are willing to risk their own money to create new products and services, while "OldSpace" is not.As to ULA, I'm not sure we're seeing a willingness by ULA's parents to truly pursue technologies and business models that will compete with SpaceX and other significant competitors so that they can be in the top rung of competitors when Vulcan becomes operational.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmSo if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing. However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025. There is no business case for SHLV's at this point, so I would not blame ULA for not pursuing that market. But then again both Musk and Bezos are positioning themselves for the markets that come AFTER where we are today. And maybe those markets won't appear, but if they do then ULA won't be positioned to take advantage of them. Food for thought.But ULA is working on some good technologies, like ACES and IVF, that could be very useful for expanding humanity out into space. However I'm not sure if they are positioned to survive that long as a launch provider and still have the money to pursue that next market using ACES and IVF. And that would not be good, because I want them to continue to be a competitor - competition is good, because it keeps everyone on their toes.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2017 02:14 amQuote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them. They are responding with smart engine re-use.
Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)
ULA must have an idea how SMART is going to work.
A write-up of the workshop by Paul D. Spudis:http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cislunar-space-next-30-years-180962249/
Quote from: Brovane on 02/23/2017 04:03 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2017 02:14 amQuote from: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 pmULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them. They are responding with smart engine re-use.Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)
Tory Bruno @torybruno 18m18 minutes agoSome cool concept art from one of our #CisLunar1000 Marketplace partners
Robert Bigelow @RobertTBigelow 13m13 minutes agoWhat if the B330 was launched to LEO, then redeployed by two @ulalaunch ACES busses to a low lunar orbit to serve as a lunar depot?
What if the @SpaceX V2 and/or the @LockheedMartin Orion were engaged as the transportation vehicles to and from the lunar depot?
If initiated soon, a lunar depot could be in operation by the end of 2020.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/31/2016 03:20 pmAs for XEUS, there is no urgency on this project. It still needs flight proven ACES and more importantly a market. Xeus can actually work just fine with Centaur, so you don't need a flight-proven ACES. But the lack of a government customer or commercial market part is what's keeping it on the slow burner. AIUI, Masten is still spending real resources on their part of their Lunar Catalyst work with NASA (who is also doing support via a non-reimbursable SAA), there's only so much that can be done without money changing hands.~Jon
QuoteWhat if the @SpaceX V2 and/or the @LockheedMartin Orion were engaged as the transportation vehicles to and from the lunar depot?https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836969249235062785QuoteIf initiated soon, a lunar depot could be in operation by the end of 2020.https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836990639560519683So it's not just SpaceX with aggressive schedules! Although SpaceX has the advantage of customers for their 'moon shot'.
Here's the show if you missed it, Tory's interview starts about 16:30 in:
ULAVerified account @ulalaunch 4m4 minutes agoHello from #33SS! Join us at 10:30amMT in the Rocky Mtn Ballroom A/B or http://www.ulalaunch.com/webcast.aspx to talk re: a self-sustaining space economy!
I'm excited to announce that @ulalaunch has funded me + @UCF & @coschoolofmines colleagues to develop lunar water extraction!
Sweet! Any high level details you can share on which approach(es) you'll be investigating?
Extraction methods that don't involve rovers hauling ore. There's a large trade space we'll be analyzing. CSM will work on hardware design.
Completed Lunar ice mining concept study for @ulalaunch yesterday. Bottom line: business case can close at ULA’s price!!
Opens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable 😀👍🌔💵💵
QuoteCompleted Lunar ice mining concept study for @ulalaunch yesterday. Bottom line: business case can close at ULA’s price!!https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872Edit to add:QuoteOpens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097
Opens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable
QuoteCompleted Lunar ice mining concept study for @ulalaunch yesterday. Bottom line: business case can close at ULA’s price!!https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872Edit to add:QuoteOpens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable 😀👍🌔💵💵https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097
All three mining concepts we looked at close the business case. Of course, low TRL and many assumptions.
Without actual robotic exploration mission to determine how ice is contained in craters, this is all educated guess work.
UCF Seeks New Way to Mine Moon for WaterUCF’s Phil Metzger and Juliet Brisset from the Florida Space Institute recently landed a contract to develop a model to mine the moon for water.Data suggests the moon has water locked away in its icy soil, especially at the moon’s poles. The challenge is finding an effective and inexpensive way to get it.Water is important because its chemical composition could be split into hydrogen and oxygen, which could then be made into rocket fuel. The ability to generate rocket fuel in space could open up more launch possibilities and reduce costs for transportation throughout lunar space and beyond.Metzger and Brisset aim to come up with a viable method to extract the water. The idea would be to drill holes deep into the moon and pump heat through the holes to warm the regolith underground, which has water locked in frigid ice chunks. As the regolith warms up, the water would be released as vapor and collected through pipes in the hole.Others have proposed having big equipment dig for the water and drag ice chunks to processing plants on the moon. But the proposed process may require equipment that has less mass and be more reliable than the wheeled digging equipment needed dig up piles of regolith and haul it to processing plants that would extract the water. By extracting the water in-place in the ground, there would be no need to move tons of soil around, Metzger said.“When you talk about getting things into space, weight matters,” he said. “So we are looking at a technique that would require less stuff you have to transport which still gets the job done.”Mining the moon is a focus of many researchers around the nation. But most are investigating techniques that collect and process the regolith of the moon rather than the ice. The regolith is the unconsolidated residual material that overlies the solid rock.The United Launch Alliance (ULA) has contracted the UCF duo to find out if their proposed method is realistic and cost effective.“Procuring propellant derived from the Moon may be substantially less expensive than hauling the propellant out of Earth’s deep gravity well,” said Bernard Kutter, ULA’s chief scientist. “This in turn could reduce the cost of space transportation by as much as a factor of five.”Those who can figure out a way to tap into water in space may be in a position to mine it and sell it for a variety of uses from life support systems and rocket fuel to radiation shielding and drinking water for space explorers.Metzger, a planetary physicist who worked at Kennedy Space Center where he co-founded KSC Swampworks before joining UCF, is leading the project. Brisset, a research associate at the institute who has multiple degrees in mechanical and space engineering as well as physics, will work on the algorithms to run the computer simulations they hope will lead to a viable model. They also plan to hire a student to help with the testing.The biggest challenge is a matter of geometry, Brisset said.The team already has data that indicates heating the moon’s underground is possible. But converting the lunar ice into vapor requires high temperatures and unfortunately most of the heat will travel away through the lunar soil and be wasted.“We have to figure out the right geometric configuration of the holes to increase the area that is heated,” Brisset said. “If we do it right, we should be able to increase the area and the time it stays warm. We will be doing a lot of modeling.”
Welcoming by @torybruno to the lunar mining camp design workshop today at @ulalaunch. The big sheet on the table is a master plan for moving civilization beyond Earth! (That's the ultimate goal, IMO.) 😀 Excited to be here.
QuoteWelcoming by @torybruno to the lunar mining camp design workshop today at @ulalaunch. The big sheet on the table is a master plan for moving civilization beyond Earth! (That's the ultimate goal, IMO.) 😀 Excited to be here.https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/991321547829927936
{snip}https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058843762313486337
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/04/2018 03:28 am{snip}https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058843762313486337The SLS may get you and your cargo to lunar orbit but you still need a lander. The mighty Saturn V could only deliver a light weight lander, the LEM, which had a payload capacity similar to that of a family car. The heavy modules needed to make habitats. manned rovers and industrial machinery will require much bigger landers.
United Launch Alliance (ULA) of Centennial, Colorado, $86.2 millionDemonstration of a smart propulsion cryogenic system, using liquid oxygen and hydrogen, on a Vulcan Centaur upper stage. The system will test precise tank pressure control, tank-to-tank transfer, and multi-week propellant storage. ULA will collaborate with Marshall, Kennedy, and Glenn.
These strategic reserve depots don't need to be financial burden. Use commercially run ones and pay then for storage and transfer of fuel.Depot owner will be up for depot build, deployment and operating costs with guarantee revenue from government for purchase and storage of certain amount of fuel over set period eg 5-10yrs.
Tory's presentation was a call for the establishment of a strategic propellant reserve. This was pitched to the User's Advisory Group of the Space Council.A few slides below: