I'm not sure who has been dismissive of Kourou. There have been only two commercial launch operators using equatorial launch sites, Arianespace and Sea Launch. Zenit's GTO payload was considerable increased by equatorial launch but they're currently out of the game for reasons other than performance.Which leaves Ariane. Although Arianespace have been very successful, their equatorial advantage has not put them beyond the reach of other competitors, as SpaceX has shown. And what other launch provider has said, "Look at Arianespace's performance advantage, we must build an equatorial launch pad somewhere to compete?" Only Sea Launch. (And it's not clear if their marine infrastructure was cheaper than a comparative land based equivalent.) Not SpaceX (who briefly considered Omalek), not ULA....Actually, this point about equatorial launch costs is slightly OT, because it is irrelevant whether depots are used or not. It comes down to whether it is financially worthwhile for launch providers to build new equatorial launch sites for performance gain only, for whatever the operational purpose. I don't believe it is for several reasons. Jon Goff gave one of them upthread.Edit: added "commercial."
Now you are being dismissive of Kourou, why would anyone have to build a new equatorial launch site, Kourou can have more pads developed. Currently several vehicles launch from there.
Quote from: nadreck on 08/15/2015 10:21 pmNow you are being dismissive of Kourou, why would anyone have to build a new equatorial launch site, Kourou can have more pads developed. Currently several vehicles launch from there.Yep, Ariane 5, Soyuz ST and Vega. All operated by...guess who? The answer to your question is politics. The French government will not allow any competitor to Arianespace to operate from their territory. If we are talking about a non commercial international collaboration like ISS involving depots (like maybe human lunar exploration) then the depot will be at an inclination suitable to the partners. It won't be equatorial because in the real messy world of compromise and trades, the small gain in performance in launching from the equator is offset by other factors.And I misunderstood what you meant by "dismissing" Kourou. I thought you meant folks were criticising Korou as a good launch site in general (which it is.) But I am most certainly dismissing it in the sense you meant.
It looks like ISS expedition 45/46 is going to get a microgravity glovebox experiment called ZBOT-1, aka Zero Boil-Off Tank. From what i understand it should be on near term cargo manifest already.
A depot orbiting the Earth in the plane of the ecliptic, with an inclination of 23.5 degrees will not stay in the ecliptic plane. Although it will remain at that inclination, the orbit will slowly precess out of the ecliptic plane. I think there is little to be gained by using such an orbit.
Um.... The orbit of Mars is not in the plane of the ecliptic. So direct-to-Mars injection points can end up far from the plane of the ecliptic too. Did you read what douglas100 wrote upthread, "[...] parking orbits with inclinations up to 52 degrees (Mars Odyssey)?" (See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/maryssey.htm#chrono for corroboration.)But this whole notion of direct-LEO-to-Mars injection doesn't really play well with the theme of depots. If you have a propulsion system that can stop along the way and refuel, why take advantage of that only once during the trip?
The New Shepard should offer larger scale testing of LH and LOX transfers without expense of going to orbit. Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 6030X using Tapatalk
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 04/15/2016 01:03 amThe New Shepard should offer larger scale testing of LH and LOX transfers without expense of going to orbit. Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 6030X using TapatalkThat would imply that if done BO would develop a fuel transfer capable US for their orbital LV system. That would also imply that that BO would develop a LEO LOX/LH2 depot. So far there has been no information or hints that BO has any such intentions. But maybe someone should point out to them what this tech could do for their transportation system.
Altius cryogenic coupler for fuel transfer.http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H2.04-8454.htmlIn Phase I, Altius and its team will focus on developing and testing a proof-of-concept of this innovative new cryogenic sealing architecture, including performing insertion/extraction and leak testing, to compare with a more traditional spring-energized polymer seal concept. Altius will then update the coupling design based on lessons learned-from these tests, raising the TRL from 2 to 3 at the end of Phase I.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2016 11:07 pmAltius cryogenic coupler for fuel transfer.http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H2.04-8454.htmlIn Phase I, Altius and its team will focus on developing and testing a proof-of-concept of this innovative new cryogenic sealing architecture, including performing insertion/extraction and leak testing, to compare with a more traditional spring-energized polymer seal concept. Altius will then update the coupling design based on lessons learned-from these tests, raising the TRL from 2 to 3 at the end of Phase I.I just saw this from mid last year. The Phase I went pretty well, and we have a Phase II proposal in for evaluation. We won't know if we have the Phase II until mid-March. If we win the Phase II, but if we do get it, it will be an important step in making upper stages for several launch vehicles inherently refuelable.~Jon