Human Rated Atlas V for Bigelow Space Station details emerge

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5008

Presentation in downloadable pdf form on L2. Active updates on Atlas HR/Bigelow also in there.

[Smatcha]

Good, paper I was in the audience when they presented it.  Add Boeing’s ATV via Delta and it would seem we have ISS pretty well covered.  Maybe NASA could spend its limited resources on getting the SSTS, infrastructure and work force in place for Heavy lift.  Makes too much sense.  No let’s extend out the Ares I/V into to 2030 duplicating what we already with ELV’s developing a brand new ELV class rocket all while hacking up the Science and Aero sides of NASA.  Yah that’s the ticket, good idea.

Okay off the soap box and back to the paper.

The paper shows 20,000 lbs “Gross” for the Capsule or 9,071 kg.

First question what is “Gross”

Launch Mass?
Orbit - Non-Payload?
Orbit - Everything?

Also I think the capsule shape is superior to Orion’s in terms of natural reentry stability and volume to surface ratio.  Using the retro rockets for additional orbital velocity is also a creative touch.

I guess someone has run the numbers on the effectives of that vs. a tower that jettisons after successful 2nd stage ignition.

[Jim]

SMetch, I have to correct you, it is beginning to bother me.   It is either STS (space transportation system) or SSP (space shuttle program).  SSTS is not used by NASA (or anyone else).  SSTS is Space Surveillance and Tracking System.

[braddock]

SMetch - 31/1/2007  5:58 PM
Also I think the capsule shape is superior to Orion’s in terms of natural reentry stability and volume to surface ratio.

Looking back at the ESAS report, some of the Dr. Stanley Q&A threads, and other papers while researching this article, it was mentioned a few times that the somewhat less ideal CEV capsule shape had a significant impact on the performance penality in closing the black zones in ESAS.  But that is not an issue I am fluent with, perhaps someone here can speak to it with more expertise.

Even ESAS conceded that the heavy Atlas V could close the black zones with CEV.  The combination of ESAS's assumption of increased mass for structural improvements required for 1.4 Factor of Safety requirements with the capsule reentry characteristics during aborts and heavy CEV mass requirments led ESAS to conclude in their trajectory analysis that Atlas V could not easily pull it off.  At least that is my best understanding of it.

Lockheed/ULA and some members here strongly disagree.  Use of manned Atlas V was pretty heavily studied during OSP and early CEV.

Some references not in the article:
Astronautix an interesting writeup of the OSP/CEV history: http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm

Dr. Stanley Q&A thread with debate on the issue: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2330&posts=253&mid=34641&highlight=black+zone&highlightmode=1&action=search#M34641

Congressional Budget Office (leans towards Atlas V): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7635/10-09-SpaceLaunch.pdf

[Bill White]

Can LM's Atlas/Bigelow capsule handle atmospheric re-entry at the velocities that arise during lunar return?

[jongoff]

Bill,

Can LM's Atlas/Bigelow capsule handle atmospheric re-entry at the velocities that arise during lunar return?

That depends mostly on the heat shield.  Might have to thicken it up a bit for lunar return.  But honestly, I'm pretty sure if we
could figure it out 40 years ago that we could figure it out again.

~Jon

[Jim]

Bill White - 31/1/2007  6:41 PM

Can LM's Atlas/Bigelow capsule handle atmospheric re-entry at the velocities that arise during lunar return?

  it is a requirement that would have to be designed in.  This design hasn't progressed far enough to determine that.

[Bill White]

I understand it is "merely" a question of mass. Can the proposed Atlas V carrier rocket carry sufficient mass?

Also, is this vehicle roomy enough to offer ~10 to ~14 days of crew accomodation for a lunar trip?

[Jim]

Bill White - 31/1/2007  7:11 PM

I understand it is "merely" a question of mass. Can the proposed Atlas V carrier rocket carry sufficient mass?

Also, is this vehicle roomy enough to offer ~10 to ~14 days of crew accomodation for a lunar trip?

It can carry 20k lbs.   What the spacecraft designer does with this will determine what mission it can do.

Define accomodations?

But the basic LM concept is a LEO capsule, not a CEV.  No big engines, no long duration, no lunar entry

[Norm Hartnett]

Nice article Chris, one minor correction; the Genesis II is the same size as Genesis I although the payload mass maybe bigger since they are shipping customer items.

The next larger subscale BA module has had a lot of names but I haven't seen much mention of it recently.

Current name of the next module is Sundancer now,  180 cubic meters of habitable space.

[MySDCUserID]

OK, I guess I'm still not totally clear on the whole ULA agreement.  I thought ULA was only involved with government payloads.  Bigelow's launches are commerical, so what is ULA's involvement vs. Lockheed Martin's?

[Smatcha]

Jim - 31/1/2007  3:13 PM

SMetch, I have to correct you, it is beginning to bother me.   It is either STS (space transportation system) or SSP (space shuttle program).  SSTS is not used by NASA (or anyone else).  SSTS is Space Surveillance and Tracking System.

How about Rand Corp of CBO or OMB or etc. any of those ring a bell?  This is its historic description "Space Shuttle Transportation System".  It’s hard to keep up with NASA's acronym musical chairs sometimes.  Besides “Space Transportation System” would be better used to distinguish “Direct” from SSTS (Opps there I go again).

O’ and it looks like acronym finder agrees as well other than that “no one uses SSTS”

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

“Its too crowded no one goes there anymore.”

It’s important after all to leave the Space Shuttle part in the Space Shuttle Transportation System don’t you think?  After all without the Space Shuttle we could have shipped up to LEO seven times the mass at half the cost and 14 less astronauts.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Jim]

LM markets Atlas commercially and Boeing markets Delta commercially.  Both will get their boosters from ULA

[Jim]

SMetch - 31/1/2007  9:13 PM


O’ and it looks like acronym finder agrees as well other than that “no one uses SSTS”

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

That is like wikipedia, user input, not reliable

Rand or CBO are not the owner of the system.  It never was SSTS as far as NASA goes.  Just STS, NSTS or SSP

I wouldn't use the CBO as a reference,

[braddock]

MySDCUserID - 31/1/2007  9:06 PM

OK, I guess I'm still not totally clear on the whole ULA agreement.  I thought ULA was only involved with government payloads.  Bigelow's launches are commerical, so what is ULA's involvement vs. Lockheed Martin's?

The Memorandum of Understanding between Bigelow and Lockheed covered studying Atlas integration, and that technical work and the launcher human rating has fallen to ULA now.  That is how it has been explained to me.  Lockheed is still around for other aspects of the project.

[Far Reach]

Norm Hartnett - 31/1/2007  7:48 PM

Nice article Chris.......

Braddock wrote this one. Look at the top of the article (I know Chris writes most of the stories, easy mistake).

[jongoff]

Far Reach,

Braddock wrote this one. Look at the top of the article (I know Chris writes most of the stories, easy mistake).

Braddock did a good job on this one.  I also wrote up some of my own observations on selenianboondocks.com:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory_31.html

Some of that overlaps with what Braddock was reporting, but some of it should hopefully be new and/or interesting.

~Jon

[JIS]

SMetch - 31/1/2007  10:58 PM

The paper shows 20,000 lbs “Gross” for the Capsule or 9,071 kg.

That is less than the Orion's crew module alone (21,000 lbs). Actually use 18,200 lbs instead of 20,000 (10% margin ;-) )  

Of course, this new ship would compete with Soujuz or Dragon not Orion. (Forget toilet - wear nappy. Sorry, no changing facilities on board).

[meiza]

jongoff - 1/2/2007  7:10 AM

Far Reach,

Braddock wrote this one. Look at the top of the article (I know Chris writes most of the stories, easy mistake).

Braddock did a good job on this one.  I also wrote up some of my own observations on selenianboondocks.com:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory_31.html

Some of that overlaps with what Braddock was reporting, but some of it should hopefully be new and/or interesting.

~Jon

Interesting times... will this be the egg that breaks the chicken and egg problem and we finally get cheaper and cheaper space launches?!
I have my skepticisims even about Bigelow flying tourists to orbit at all.. But we'll see.

[jongoff]

JIS,

That is less than the Orion's crew module alone (21,000 lbs). Actually use 18,200 lbs instead of 20,000 (10% margin ;-) )  

And LM wasn't trying to fly Orion on its Human Rated Atlas V 401, so I don't see what your point is.  However that's also 100% beside the point in my opinion.  If you can fly the crew up on a commercial vehicle, you no longer need a "World's Most Reliable Rocket Evar!!" CLV to put the CEV into orbit.  It could be launched either on an existing EELV heavy (without needing to closeout black zones because it's unmanned on the way up), or possibly on the CaLV itself, and eliminate the CLV entirely.

There's no reason you have to do things exactly like ESAS claimed.  

Of course, this new ship would compete with Soujuz or Dragon not Orion. (Forget toilet - wear nappy. Sorry, no changing facilities on board).

Actually they've been looking at courting SpaceX into flying their Dragon on Atlas V.  The "Human Rated" Atlas V is just the booster half of the equation.  They're still looking for a partner for the capsule side.

~Jon

[JIS]

jongoff - 1/2/2007  4:33 PM

JIS,

That is less than the Orion's crew module alone (21,000 lbs). Actually use 18,200 lbs instead of 20,000 (10% margin ;-) )  

And LM wasn't trying to fly Orion on its Human Rated Atlas V 401, so I don't see what your point is.

The point is that any ship launched on Atlas V can't be an equivalent to Orion.

 However that's also 100% beside the point in my opinion.  If you can fly the crew up on a commercial vehicle, you no longer need a "World's Most Reliable Rocket Evar!!" CLV to put the CEV into orbit.  It could be launched either on an existing EELV heavy (without needing to closeout black zones because it's unmanned on the way up), or possibly on the CaLV itself, and eliminate the CLV entirely.

You propose

1) to launch unmaned Orion on top of heavy EELV and than dock it with the new commercial ship for crew transfer and than redock to LSAM/EDS stack?

2) to launch unmanned Orion/LSAM/EDS stack and than dock with new comm. ship and transfer the crew?

In case 1) the two EELV launches would ruin LOM numbers, somebody (NASA?) would have to pay to manrate EELV and for an extra space ship.

In case 2) the LSAM would have to be smaller to acommodate extra weight (CEV) on Ares V and there is a need for extra space ship.

There's no reason you have to do things exactly like ESAS claimed.  

This has been selected by NASA and congress approved.

Of course, this new ship would compete with Soujuz or Dragon not Orion. (Forget toilet - wear nappy. Sorry, no changing facilities on board).

Actually they've been looking at courting SpaceX into flying their Dragon on Atlas V. The "Human Rated" Atlas V is just the booster half of the equation. They're still looking for a partner for the capsule side.

~Jon

Only when Falcon 9 is disaster. In this case Space X doesn't have much in their hands. Dragon powerpoint presentation and some mockup. They claimed Falcon 1 is ready for start in 2004 (and shown 100% of hardware in January of 2004) an still not flying in 2007.

[jongoff]

JIS,

The point is that any ship launched on Atlas V can't be an equivalent to Orion.

Depends entirely.  Yes, a ship that can do absolutely everything that Orion does can't be launch on a single launch of a stock Atlas V 401, but who cares?  There are other existing versions of Atlas V, and there are much better ways to handle transporting crew to/from the moon than the whole Orion approach anyway.  

You propose

1) to launch unmaned Orion on top of heavy EELV and than dock it with the new commercial ship for crew transfer and than redock to LSAM/EDS stack?

2) to launch unmanned Orion/LSAM/EDS stack and than dock with new comm. ship and transfer the crew?

Those are two definite options.

In case 1) the two EELV launches would ruin LOM numbers, somebody (NASA?) would have to pay to manrate EELV and for an extra space ship.

Not really.  AIUI, LOM numbers are and were dominated by the CEV's TEI burn, not by launches, even with EELVs.  More importantly, the whole concept of Loss of Mission is inherently flawed.  If you have the capability of transfering propellant on orbit, the only way to "lose" a mission due to launch is if your launcher that sends up the lunar lander crashes (or if you lose the crew in an accident).  The way ESAS treated LOM was overly simplistic and IMO rather unrealistic.  

In case 2) the LSAM would have to be smaller to acommodate extra weight (CEV) on Ares V and there is a need for extra space ship.

Or you just top up propellants in orbit.  The whole idea of trying to always build boosters big enough to launch things fully fueled is getting rather anachronistic.  If NASA insists on doing things that way, that's ok.  Their loss.

This has been selected by NASA and congress approved.

Which still doesn't mean it's set in stone.  How many NASA programs that have been "selected by NASA" and "approved" by Congress have ended up being changed dramatically or eventually canceled.

Just because one Congress and one NASA Administration thought that an idea was workable doesn't mean we're locked in forever by that decision.

Only when Falcon 9 is disaster. In this case Space X doesn't have much in their hands. Dragon powerpoint presentation and some mockup. They claimed Falcon 1 is ready for start in 2004 (and shown 100% of hardware in January of 2004) an still not flying in 2007.

And they're looking at others as well.  In case you didn't notice, CEV, CLV, CaLV, LSAM, etc are also all just powerpoint presentations and mockups at this point as well.

~Jon

[braddock]

Jon,
Have you read this Lockheed paper from Space2006?  I had mentioned it in my original Bigelow deal article in September.
"Commercial Launch Services: an Enabler for Launch Vehicle"
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13346.pdf

I thought it made the case for commercial launch involvement in VSE using on-orbit propellant transfer very well.
(as do you, lately)  

-braddock

[meiza]

braddock - 1/2/2007  9:31 PM

Jon,
Have you read this Lockheed paper from Space2006?  I had mentioned it in my original Bigelow deal article in September.
"Commercial Launch Services: an Enabler for Launch Vehicle"
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13346.pdf

I thought it made the case for commercial launch involvement in VSE using on-orbit propellant transfer very well.
(as do you, lately)  

-braddock

Yes, this has been talked about. Nasa could quadruple the mass to orbit of the US launch market if it wanted. I attached a picture from the Lockheed Martin study by Bernard F. Kutter. That shows what kind of markets NASA controls.

There was a thread about VSE with orbital refueling in the fall of 2006 termed
Another Alternative Exploration Architecture. Many commenters were quite afraid of orbital refueling (this was before the whole Direct concept), and had comments like "heavy lift is absolutely necessary", but many saw it quite feasible.

[JIS]

jongoff - 1/2/2007  8:35 PM

AIUI, LOM numbers are and were dominated by the CEV's TEI burn, not by launches, even with EELVs.  More importantly, the whole concept of Loss of Mission is inherently flawed.  If you have the capability of transfering propellant on orbit, the only way to "lose" a mission due to launch is if your launcher that sends up the lunar lander crashes (or if you lose the crew in an accident).

And what about unsuccesful docking/refueling? It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier. ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

Sorry beeing off topic

[jongoff]

JIS,

And what about unsuccesful docking/refueling?

You try again?  Seriously, the best way to handle this would be at a small station (like Sundancer), where the Lunar Stack only has to dock once, and all the tanker ops dock to the station itself, which allows for more robust, simpler systems, the use of man-in-the-loop docking (instead of autonomous), etc.  Sundancer and Nautilus are both likely to be up before Ares I flies its first manned flight.  If you really lose a tanker in a way that's 100% unsalveageable (extraordinarily unlikely--the real odds for a unsuccesful docking event are probably 1:10,000 if you set things up wisely), you just deorbit it, and wait for the next one.  With the number of existing and proposed launchers, even if half the families had to be shut down at some point or another due to failures, there'd still be plenty of propellant to be had.  And in fact you can wait to launch the lunar stack until the tanks at the station are above a certain percentage...

Basically, there are plenty of ways to make this work, and the first commercial propellant depot will figure them out.

It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier.

Doug Stanley and Mike Griffin are both big fans or orbital refueling, and are trying to make sure that the number of modifications necessary to allow for that are minimized.  More complex and heavier? And this is as opposed to adding cryocoolers and radiators to the EDS?

ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

No it actually doesn't.  First off, while many of the technologies may be low *development* risk, there are operational risks that come with them.  If the EDS/LSAM don't have cryocoolers, then you could lose the whole mission if Ares I is delayed, or suffers an in-flight abort.  Billions of dollars of hardware 100% dependent on the timing of the second booster.  A refueling system may very well have *lower* LOM numbers because if you have any sort of delay, you can always just ship up another tanker to accomodate.

The logic in that particular section of ESAS was horribly flawed.

~Jon

[nacnud]

[JIS]

jongoff - 2/2/2007  4:17 PM

JIS,

And what about unsuccesful docking/refueling?

You try again?  ...

Basically, there are plenty of ways to make this work, and the first commercial propellant depot will figure them out.

Freedom 2?

It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier.

Doug Stanley and Mike Griffin are both big fans or orbital refueling, and are trying to make sure that the number of modifications necessary to allow for that are minimized.  More complex and heavier? And this is as opposed to adding cryocoolers and radiators to the EDS?

cryocoolers and radiators on EDS? I'm hearing this for the first time.
However, it would be certainly needed on Freedom No 2.

ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

If the EDS/LSAM don't have cryocoolers, then you could lose the whole mission if Ares I is delayed, or suffers an in-flight abort.  Billions of dollars of hardware 100% dependent on the timing of the second booster.  

What about sending LSAM to the moon base unmanned or perform some kind of lower dV backup mission?

A refueling system may very well have *lower* LOM numbers because if you have any sort of delay, you can always just ship up another tanker to accomodate.

And housekeep low cost Freedom 2 with low cost tankers?

The logic in that particular section of ESAS was horribly flawed.

~Jon

So the LEO depot with "shuttle" flights.
The difference is that the current approach is anchored in Apollo but depod idea is anchored in the failed Freedom and anemic ISS and STS.

[Jim]

JIS - 2/2/2007  1:24 PM

So the LEO depot with "shuttle" flights.
The difference is that the current approach is anchored in Apollo but depod idea is anchored in the failed Freedom and anemic ISS and STS.

ESAS is not Apollo.  Actually the 1.5 launch approach is more like the depot.

[jongoff]

JIS,

Basically, there are plenty of ways to make this work, and the first commercial propellant depot will figure them out.

Freedom 2?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Bigelow's Sundancer/Nautilus station.  They don't exist yet, but neither do any of the ESAS vehicles.  A government owned and operated station would be a bad idea.  A commercially owned, developed, and operated station can be a lot more reasonable.  They can buy propellants from whoever can launch them (ie they aren't limited to only wholy US launchers), they can serve multiple markets, and NASA only has to pay for the propellant.

It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier.

Doug Stanley and Mike Griffin are both big fans or orbital refueling, and are trying to make sure that the number of modifications necessary to allow for that are minimized.  More complex and heavier? And this is as opposed to adding cryocoolers and radiators to the EDS?

cryocoolers and radiators on EDS? I'm hearing this for the first time.
However, it would be certainly needed on Freedom No 2. [/quote]

I can't remember if I heard this from Doug, but I think that's what they're looking at.  Either that or you only have a 15 day window to get Ares I up there before you start cutting into mission margins something fierce.  And no cryocoolers aren't 100% necessary for a first generation commercial propellant depot.  The Centaur guys think they know how to get boiloff down to .01-.02% per day without any active cooling systems, and that would be more than adequate.  For a commercial system cryocoolers are a "nice to have" but not 100% necessary feature.  For an EDS to last more than 15 days on orbit waiting for Ares I it's close to a neccessity.

ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

If the EDS/LSAM don't have cryocoolers, then you could lose the whole mission if Ares I is delayed, or suffers an in-flight abort.  Billions of dollars of hardware 100% dependent on the timing of the second booster.  

What about sending LSAM to the moon base unmanned or perform some kind of lower dV backup mission?[/quote]

It's still a lost mission.  Yeah, you can salvage something from it possibly, but now one of your two yearly missions has
been wasted.  Trying to avoid developing the technologies and infrastructure needed for robust and safe cislunar travel
is stupid.  Sure you can often salvage something from the loss, but why?  Why not just do it right?

A refueling system may very well have *lower* LOM numbers because if you have any sort of delay, you can always just ship up another tanker to accomodate.

And housekeep low cost Freedom 2 with low cost tankers?

NASA wouldn't be owning it or operating it.  They just have to pay the marginal cost for propellant like anyone else.  The cost of maintaining a commercial station is likely going to be substantially lower than ISS.  Especially if you're servicing it with commercial vehicles, as opposed to bloated welfare-for-nerds projects like the Shuttle.

So the LEO depot with "shuttle" flights.
The difference is that the current approach is anchored in Apollo but depod idea is anchored in the failed Freedom and anemic ISS and STS.

Wow, gotta love the false analogies.  The key differences as I see it are: profit motive provides incentives to do things as efficiently as possible, using existing vehicles for the tankers keeps the prices way down compared to shuttle (especially as the flight rates go up), not trying to run the thing as an engineering welfare project will make it work better, etc, etc.

~Jon

[josh_simonson]

Using the EDS as a second stage, leaving it half empty in LEO prior to TLI, really cries for it to be topped off while in LEO.  That would nearly double the mass flown to the moon, or allow for much bigger probes (or faster ones!) to destinations beyond the Earth-Moon system.

ESAS also spent considerable paper examining how long the EDS could remain in orbit without undue boil-off while waiting for weather and hardware to align to allow the CEV to launch.  This requires intricate and expensive insulation, ect.  If someone from the industry were to go up to NASA and say "We can increase your TLI mass by 80%, reduce the cost of the EDS, and also allow the EDS to remain on standby in orbit indefinitely."  NASA would be unable to resist looking into it.  Such capabilities are mandatory for assembling a mars craft in orbit, even with HLVs, so developing such capabilities during the lunar missions is in keeping with the "prepare for mars" portion of lunar exploration.

[jongoff]

Josh,

Using the EDS as a second stage, leaving it half empty in LEO prior to TLI, really cries for it to be topped off while in LEO.  That would nearly double the mass flown to the moon, or allow for much bigger probes (or faster ones!) to destinations beyond the Earth-Moon system.

ESAS also spent considerable paper examining how long the EDS could remain in orbit without undue boil-off while waiting for weather and hardware to align to allow the CEV to launch.  This requires intricate and expensive insulation, ect.  If someone from the industry were to go up to NASA and say "We can increase your TLI mass by 80%, reduce the cost of the EDS, and also allow the EDS to remain on standby in orbit indefinitely."  NASA would be unable to resist looking into it.  Such capabilities are mandatory for assembling a mars craft in orbit, even with HLVs, so developing such capabilities during the lunar missions is in keeping with the "prepare for mars" portion of lunar exploration.

I think you put it much better than I have so far.  It's a technology we really need to master, that makes the exploration system cheaper, more robust, allows for greater capabilities, and is needed at some point anyway.  The sooner that orbital refueling is brought on-line, the better.  One of the other things it opens up is eventually reusing the EDS.  

It makes sense.  It saves money.  It enhances capabilities.  It's just the right thing to do.  

~Jon

[Bill White]

As I recall both Mike Griffin and Doug Stanley said that if the private sector built a LEO fuel depot and if the costs were favorable NASA would buy fuel.

I agree with Jon Goff that NASA should not own this facility. Therefore, NASA cannot pay the deployment costs either.

[jongoff]

Bill White - 2/2/2007  2:02 PM

As I recall both Mike Griffin and Doug Stanley said that if the private sector built a LEO fuel depot and if the costs were favorable NASA would buy fuel.

I agree with Jon Goff that NASA should not own this facility. Therefore, NASA cannot pay the deployment costs either.

Ever heard of COTS?  Seriously, there are several things that NASA could do to increase the odds of a commercial propellant depot becoming a reality.
The big problem standing in the way of commercial propellant depots is a proven, stable market.  The technology isn't that tough, most of it is off-the-shelf
or nearly so.  The problem is that their single biggest potential customer (who would need hundreds of thousands of pounds of propellant per year), is not
willing to put any skin in the game.  Even if NASA could set aside in escrow a bit of money in the form of a prize or a performance based contract (say
$500M for enough propellant to top off an EDS), that would be huge.  But just saying in a 100% non-binding sort of way that "yeah we'd buy if someone
can sell" is next to useless.  If investors knew that somehow NASA could sign some form of contingency contract, I think a propellant depot would be on
orbit before the Shuttle is even retired.  The problem is that since NASA isn't commited to actually follow through on Mike and Doug's promise, no investor
is going to trust that.  I'm trying to find other markets that by themselves could justify building such a propellant depot, but it's challenging, because most
of them are of the sort that they can't exist without a propellant depot either, so both have to be developed in parallel.

If NASA did something for propellant storage and transfer similar to what they're doing with SpaceX and RpK (which btw will be allowed to operate their
own vehicles, and to use them commercially, just like EELVs are used commercially even though the AF paid some of the development costs), it would
make a huge difference.

~Jon

[meiza]

Why are people focusing on it definitely having to be a private thing? If the depot was NASA:s and even the tankers were NASA:s, but they bought launches, it could achieve a lot. Like they currently do for space probes, they buy launches. (Not of course in a similar way, because these would be massive flight rates.) It doesn't need to get any more complicated than ESAS, we don't need to attach all libertarian / private good government bad things there (I'm not saying they're bad, just that they're not necessary).

The depot just makes everything more _flexible_, that's the key advantage in my mind. You aren't tied to one size launcher and one size payload and one time make or break launch window etc etc. It's also potentially cost effective.

[JIS]

So essentially NASA would pay to develop ESAS stuff (except for compilation of Ares 1 from building blocks for Ares V) and more over would pay for LEO depot (dedicated to VSE) and development/operation of private tankers.
I think it's much worse idea than COTS. NASA have many other means to get to ISS if COTS fails, there is no other mean to get to the Moon if depot or new private tanker industry fail.
I'm not sure that this would be the safest, fastes and cheapest way to the Moon.
Let's built depot when there is true capability to do that (Bigelow on orbit facility with private servicing) and clear demand from more costumers (VSE plus other potential gov or private users).
These are big tasks for the small private space industry of today. And it will take many years to get there. Bigelow took over his technology from NASA and still doing his first baby steps. Space X has hard time to launch it's test rocket and RpK will spend at least billion before their first test launch. Others are starting tech demonstration at the best.
Even suborbital private flights haven't materialised yet.

[braddock]

What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be filled/refilled in LEO?
What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be REUSED as a tug, and hang out at the fuel station?

[meiza]

JIS/braddock: you keep missing the point! You DON'T NEED HEAVY LIFT if you launch using a depot. Orbital refuelling could be demonstrated in, what, a year? Two thirds of the lunar stack is propellants. You don't develop an Ares V, since you don't need to launch that huge 90 tons of liquid oxygen to orbit in one go anymore. You can divide it indefinitely if you want.
Just refueling the EDS is going halfway, in a way it's the worst of both worlds as there are still the hugely expensive Ares vehicles with their standing armies and capabilities that have to be maintained around the country, that only fly a few times a year and are not used or really usable for anything else as they are too big.

[meiza]

I meant to say, orbital propellant transfer could be demonstrated in a short time.

[braddock]

meiza - 5/2/2007  9:20 AM
JIS/braddock: you keep missing the point! You DON'T NEED HEAVY LIFT if you launch using a depot.

I certainly understand that, and personally lean towards it.

But I was wondering if a plausible case to NASA could still be made for a refueling depot after they've already invested in Ares V.  If Ares V + LEO refueling is still attractive enough, it could become the centerpiece of an extended NASA roadmap to permanent moon bases and Mars.  It could help take the place of in-situ fuel generation.

[clongton]

braddock - 5/2/2007  10:36 AM
If ... LEO refueling is still attractive enough, it could become the centerpiece of an extended NASA roadmap to permanent moon bases and Mars.  It could help take the place of in-situ fuel generation.

Better yet, what if the in-situ fuel generation plants were on the moon? What's the cost delta between sending a ton of fuel to a LEO fuel depot from the earth (deep gravity well) as opposed to sending it to the same depot from the moon (shallow gravity well)? I know this is long-viewed, but doesn't it make sense for the moon to eventually be the fuel generation location, instead of the earth?

[jongoff]

Braddock,

What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be filled/refilled in LEO?
What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be REUSED as a tug, and hang out at the fuel station?

I'm not entirely sure, but if you top off the EDS, but otherwise expend it like per the current ESAS plan, you could increase the payload to the lunar surface by somewhere between 30-50% per mission.  If you use the EDS as a reusable tug, it would be somewhat lower than that.  Probably closer to 25-40%.  I can try digging up some numbers if you'd like.

~Jon

[Zond]

This recent document has some interesting info about orbital propellant depots: In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Depot Potential Commercial and Exploration Applications (24,9 MB ,PDF)

[Bill White]

clongton - 5/2/2007  10:16 AM

braddock - 5/2/2007  10:36 AM
If ... LEO refueling is still attractive enough, it could become the centerpiece of an extended NASA roadmap to permanent moon bases and Mars.  It could help take the place of in-situ fuel generation.

Better yet, what if the in-situ fuel generation plants were on the moon? What's the cost delta between sending a ton of fuel to a LEO fuel depot from the earth (deep gravity well) as opposed to sending it to the same depot from the moon (shallow gravity well)? I know this is long-viewed, but doesn't it make sense for the moon to eventually be the fuel generation location, instead of the earth?

Lunar LOX and Terran H2 or CH4 would make a terrific combination. LOX can be extracted from anywhere on the Moon. H2 from cold trap ice would be largely restricted to polar locations.

EML-1 & EML-2 also make terrific locations for fuel depots giving equal access to the entire Moon.

= = =

Of course, MXER tethers deployed in LEO offer many of the same advantages as LEO fuel depots. Dry launch and sling your payload to the Moon.

[Kayla]

jongoff - 5/2/2007  10:34 AM

Braddock,

What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be filled/refilled in LEO?
What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be REUSED as a tug, and hang out at the fuel station?

I'm not entirely sure, but if you top off the EDS, but otherwise expend it like per the current ESAS plan, you could increase the payload to the lunar surface by somewhere between 30-50% per mission.  If you use the EDS as a reusable tug, it would be somewhat lower than that.  Probably closer to 25-40%.  I can try digging up some numbers if you'd like.

~Jon

"topping off" the EDS in LEO can increase lunar payload from almost nothing to over 20 mT:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13351.pdf

[JIS]

meiza - 5/2/2007  3:13 PM

I meant to say, orbital propellant transfer could be demonstrated in a short time.

When? How?
5-10Years? Two complex satelites with docking system are several $B.

[meiza]

The actual zero gee propellant transfer could be demonstrated on a Centaur flying a normal payload to orbit. Lockheed Martin has papers on this.
Rendezvous and docking is a different beast then. There are multiple approaches to do that.

[Zond]

JIS - 6/2/2007  1:17 PM

meiza - 5/2/2007  3:13 PM

I meant to say, orbital propellant transfer could be demonstrated in a short time.

When? How?

The russians have been doing it for thirty years with Progress and Salyut/Mir/ISS.
And DARPA/NASA is planning to launch Orbital Express this month.

5-10Years? Two complex satelites with docking system are several $B.

Orbital Express is costing $267.4 million. And i believe a Progress vehicle will set you back something in the neighbourhoud of $50 million. Unless you are building JWST or some new spy satellite loaded with gadgets you will have a difficult time finding a sattelite that costs several billion dollars.
With several billion dollars you could propably build yourself a decent propellant depot.

[jongoff]

Jim,

When? How? 5-10Years? Two complex satellites with docking system are several $B.

Well, lets see.  Non-cryo propellant transfer has been demonstrated for decades.  Using state of 1960s/70s Soviet technology nonetheless!  I wouldn't be surprised if we had a demonstration of settled cryogenic transfer within the next 2-3 years.  The technology is not the challenge.  Centaur "transfers" cryogenic propellants from its tanks to its engines through several valves (and a turbopump) in zero-G all the time.  They've been doing it for decades.  The only challenge is finding a market big enough to justify the remaining development cost.

I'm working on that angle.

And no, it won't involve complex satellites that cost several $B.  You could do it that way, but that would be dumb.  There are much cheaper ways of doing such things.

~Jon

[jongoff]

Zond,

Orbital Express is costing $267.4 million. And i believe a Progress vehicle will set you back something in the neighborhood of $50 million. Unless you are building JWST or some new spy satellite loaded with gadgets you will have a difficult time finding a satellite that costs several billion dollars.
With several billion dollars you could probably build yourself a decent propellant depot.

You could probably build a decent first-gen propellant depot for far less than that.  But yeah, your basic point that JIS's "Several $B" comment was just handwaving stands.  

~Jon

"When you want something you'll find a way, when you don't want something, you'll find an excuse" --Tagalog Proverb

[jongoff]

JIS,

So essentially NASA would pay to develop ESAS stuff (except for compilation of Ares 1 from building blocks for Ares V) and more over would pay for LEO depot (dedicated to VSE) and development/operation of private tankers.

Nope.  Not what I'm saying at all.  They *could* pay some of the development cost for the LEO depot/tankers, with private sources putting a substantial amount of skin in the game.  Or they could offer prizes to demonstrate a couple of the key technologies (they're already anemically starting to do this, at least in theory).  Best yet would be if they set some money aside in some sort of trust fund.  Say enough money to pay to tank up a year's worth of EDS flights, at a good price.  To be paid out on delivery.  Personally, I think that that would be preferable.

But even if they don't do anything to help the market out, commercial LEO propellant depots will likely be a going concern before Ares I ever flies a manned mission.  It's just that if NASA actually followed its legal requirement to promote the commercial development of space, instead of competing against it, it would make such an eventually even more likely.

I think it's much worse idea than COTS.

Of course you do.  My feelings aren't hurt.  

NASA have many other means to get to ISS if COTS fails, there is no other mean to get to the Moon if depot or new private tanker industry fail.

Nonsense.  If you do what I suggested with the escrow account, you set a deadline on that, such that if the capability isn't ready by that point, that the money gets transfered back to Ares-V/EDS/LSAM development.

I'm not sure that this would be the safest, fastest and cheapest way to the Moon.

If all you care about is some sort of easily cancelable, unsustainable, waste of taxpayer money, "round off error" of a moon program, then you're quite right.  If you'd like to see anything useful come out of VSE, then I think you're completely wrong.

Let's built depot when there is true capability to do that (Bigelow on orbit facility with private servicing) and clear demand from more costumers (VSE plus other potential gov or private users).

I wasn't suggesting building a propellant depot right this instant, I was just suggesting that NASA follow the law and actually try promoting commercial space development by acting as a customer.  If NASA acted as a stable customer for 200-300klb of propellant per year, I can guarantee you that other markets would also come along, and probably quickly.  If NASA isn't a customer, it might be possible to bootstrap your way through those other markets (and I intend to try), but it's far less certain.

But either way, it'll still be flying before any metal has been bent for Ares V.

These are big tasks for the small private space industry of today. And it will take many years to get there. Bigelow took over his technology from NASA and still doing his first baby steps. Space X has hard time to launch it's test rocket and RpK will spend at least billion before their first test launch. Others are starting tech demonstration at the best.
Even suborbital private flights haven't materialised yet.

You forget however that Lockheed and Boeing have existed (in various forms) for over 50 years now.  They've been launching things reliably, and a first-gen propellant depot could start even if RpK and SpaceX fail.  Though Bigelow succeeding would help immensely.  Private space isn't just plucky alt.space companies.  It also includes the dinosaurs when they decide to act mammalian.

~Jon

[clongton]

meiza - 6/2/2007  11:07 AM

The actual zero gee propellant transfer could be demonstrated on a Centaur flying a normal payload to orbit. Lockheed Martin has papers on this.

There was a fairly good presentation of cryogenic propellant transfer done by the AIAA titled “Settled Cryogenic Propellant Transfer”. It’s AIAA 2006-4436. You can find it here: www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13351.pdf
This might be one of the papers you're referring to.

[josh_simonson]

The EDS would need to be built with the capability to be re-fueled and maintained in orbit, such as attachment points to collect LH2 boiloff for reliquification and return to the EDS.  Also if RCS is used to settle the propellant the EDS will need attachment points to hold it in place.  

To ensure that the stock EDS is built with a useful configuration for this requires that a generic depot scheme be developed by the time the EDS is being developed, and that the company(s) doing that work coordinate with NASA on it to ensure that orbital fuel transfer is safe and simple with a stock EDS.

The elephant in the room for this scenario is the Aries V - it's very unlikely that anyone, even russia, will be able to fly bulk cargo at a per/lb rate that is lower than the incremental per/lb cost of launching another Aries V.  If Aries V costs turn out like the Shuttle, an additional Aries V would be more or less free.  This may well make the best orbital fuel depot scheme involve a private depot and a streched EDS launched on the Aries V.  Perhaps an orbital tug to assist in docking the EDS with the depot as well.

Fuel delivery to an EML1 depot is less straightforward than an LEO depot, solar electric and/or electrodynamic propulsion may be able to get fuel there from earth cheaper than Aries V could, and lunar ISRU also becomes a possibility.

[braddock]

How badly does the need to rendezvous with an LEO refueling station limit launch opportunities to a particular lunar landing site?

[meiza]

josh_simonson - 6/2/2007  9:07 PM

The EDS would need to be built with the capability to be re-fueled and maintained in orbit, such as attachment points to collect LH2 boiloff for reliquification and return to the EDS.  Also if RCS is used to settle the propellant the EDS will need attachment points to hold it in place.  

Not if you keep the propellant in the depot, not in the EDS. The depot can be heavy and have 40 layers of insulation and a sunshield. It can even have a robot arm to capture the EDS/LSAM/CEV/tanker for berthing.
You launch the EDS so that it doesn't have any propellant once it reaches orbit. (Or alternatively any LOX if you have a LOX only depot.)

To ensure that the stock EDS is built with a useful configuration for this requires that a generic depot scheme be developed by the time the EDS is being developed, and that the company(s) doing that work coordinate with NASA on it to ensure that orbital fuel transfer is safe and simple with a stock EDS.

The elephant in the room for this scenario is the Aries V - it's very unlikely that anyone, even russia, will be able to fly bulk cargo at a per/lb rate that is lower than the incremental per/lb cost of launching another Aries V.  If Aries V costs turn out like the Shuttle, an additional Aries V would be more or less free.  This may well make the best orbital fuel depot scheme involve a private depot and a streched EDS launched on the Aries V.  Perhaps an orbital tug to assist in docking the EDS with the depot as well.

Fuel delivery to an EML1 depot is less straightforward than an LEO depot, solar electric and/or electrodynamic propulsion may be able to get fuel there from earth cheaper than Aries V could, and lunar ISRU also becomes a possibility.

I don't predict it's that useful anymore to do depots once you have wasted the billions in developing Ares I and V and keep them operational and the standing armies waiting. Launch as many ones and vees as you can, every year, it doesn't cost much more than launching none, if the capability is kept on the threshold. That way you get the most bang for the buck. Ares V is nice in that it can put a lot of payload to the lunar surface all by itself.
You need something for the Mars launch though but there are so many exploration strategies and configuration and propulsion choices still that it's a mess.

You can then let the other rocket factories that existed already way back in 2002 get spiderwebs around their 40 boosters per year production lines, since you had to have your one true NASA way with billions of dollars and a decade of delay.

(Btw, a minor nit to set things straight, it's Ares, not Aries. There's no i in Ares.)

[jongoff]

Josh,

jThe EDS would need to be built with the capability to be re-fueled and maintained in orbit, such as attachment points to collect LH2 boiloff for reliquification and return to the EDS.  Also if RCS is used to settle the propellant the EDS will need attachment points to hold it in place.

You don't *have* to reliquify boiled off GH2.  You can just vent it like Centaur does.  As it is, Doug Stanley was saying that they were trying to design the EDS so as not to preclude refueling precisely because refueling makes so much economic and performance sense.

To ensure that the stock EDS is built with a useful configuration for this requires that a generic depot scheme be developed by the time the EDS is being developed, and that the company(s) doing that work coordinate with NASA on it to ensure that orbital fuel transfer is safe and simple with a stock EDS.

I'm not too worried.  Actual serious development work on the EDS won't start till the 2012-2016 time frame (if budget cuts don't push it out even further).  I'd be really surprised if nobody has a commercial depot by then, or at least one in the works that they could work with NASA on.  But my bet is that there will be a working system with a standard interface by the time NASA gets around to doing the EDS.

The elephant in the room for this scenario is the Aries V - it's very unlikely that anyone, even russia, will be able to fly bulk cargo at a per/lb rate that is lower than the incremental per/lb cost of launching another Aries V.  If Aries V costs turn out like the Shuttle, an additional Aries V would be more or less free.  This may well make the best orbital fuel depot scheme involve a private depot and a streched EDS launched on the Aries V.  Perhaps an orbital tug to assist in docking the EDS with the depot as well.

I'll believe that when I see it.  The only thing I believe less than NASA cost estimates is NASA safety predictions.  

Fuel delivery to an EML1 depot is less straightforward than an LEO depot, solar electric and/or electrodynamic propulsion may be able to get fuel there from earth cheaper than Aries V could, and lunar ISRU also becomes a possibility.

L1 depots can initially (at some cost) be replenished from earth, but in the long run lunar ISRU will be what it takes to make them really workable.

Just my $.02

~Jon

[meiza]

Incidentally, even the swedes are going to test remote orbital formation flying and rendezvous, with the Prism program in 2009, as mentioned here:
http://www.ssc.se/default.asp?groupid=2005929142335959

[BarryKirk]

Well, a LOX only depot makes a lot of sense.

1) The boiloff rate for LOX is lower than for LH2.
2) The LOX is a lot heavier than LH2.

So, if the heavy LOX is offloaded from the EDS so that the launcher doesn't have to boost it to orbit.  Than the booster can be a lot smaller.

Question, is most of the mass of an EDS stage the LOX?  I'm including the  payload in this.

[Jim]

yes, because there is LOX in the payload

[meiza]

From the FLEX draft document (assuming a 6:1 O:F ratio):
Table 2: Stack Propellant Breakdown. t means 1000 kg

Name	Empty mass, t	Propellant mass	Of which LOX, t
CEV	14	9	0
LSAM	14	30	25
EDS	18	85*	73
TOTAL:	46	124	98

LOX is a pretty obvious choice. The stack consists of 46 tons
of spacecraft, 124 tons of propellants of which 98 tons is liquid
oxygen. Our depot needs to only hold liquid oxygen to be extremely
useful for a lunar architecture.

[jongoff]

Meiza,
Having a LOX-only depot is definitely easier than trying to store LH2 as well...but you also lose one of the big benefits in my opinion.  A LOX/LH2 stage in LEO is going to be boiling off a lot of LH2.  If you can't top that off, you always run a risk of losing the mission (and the hardware) due to launch delays or other similar problems.  If you can top off the LH2, it drops the LOM numbers, and gives you more flexibility.

And in reality, storing and handling LH2 on orbit isn't really that much harder than storing and handling LOX on orbit.  It's not trivial, but I'd be surprised if the first cryo propellant depot in orbit didn't offer both LOX and LH2.

~Jon

[Bill White]

I wish to channel Dennis Wingo: "It's all about the ISRU, ISRU,  & ISRU. Did I mention ISRU?"

Lunar LOX extraction can happen anywhere on the Moon, no cold traps needed. No geopolitical fights over whether we or the Chinese get first dibs on the best frozen water deposits, no need to import nuclear reactors for the energy need to crack water into H2 and O2. No need to wonder whether there really is any extractable water, an unproven hypothesis at this point.

We KNOW lunar regolith contains significant amounts of oxygen.

My favorite lunar ISRU method is simple vacuum pyrolysis using Lowe's grade mylar to make parabolic mirrors to heat regolith to ~2000 F and thereby outgas O2.

LOX is over 80% of the mass needed for an H2/LOX engine. Bring the H2 or CH4 or kerosene from Earth and extract the LOX from everywhere and anywhere on the Moon.

= = =

Or we can hang Mike Griffin in effigy and DEMAND dry launch EELV together with Congress purchased LEO fuel depots and postpone lunar return until these fuel depots are built and thereby end up instead with Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson finding a way to keep the orbiters flying until 2020, or beyond.

If NewSpace would focus on lunar LOX extraction, and accomplish it, plenty of other stuff would fall into place very quickly.

[meiza]

jongoff - 8/2/2007  2:17 AM

Meiza,
Having a LOX-only depot is definitely easier than trying to store LH2 as well...but you also lose one of the big benefits in my opinion.  A LOX/LH2 stage in LEO is going to be boiling off a lot of LH2.  If you can't top that off, you always run a risk of losing the mission (and the hardware) due to launch delays or other similar problems.  If you can top off the LH2, it drops the LOM numbers, and gives you more flexibility.

And in reality, storing and handling LH2 on orbit isn't really that much harder than storing and handling LOX on orbit.  It's not trivial, but I'd be surprised if the first cryo propellant depot in orbit didn't offer both LOX and LH2.

~Jon

Yes, it's a trade. Both have their good and bad sides. But the LH2 is so light (one seventh of the total!) that a Delta IV heavy or even an Ares I can very probably carry the EDS or LSAM with all the needed LH2 loaded in. It's just these two launches where LH2 is needed, so it's not _that_ delay sensitive. The launch order of CEV, LSAM and EDS can be optimized regarding the greatest threats. (Ie launch CEV first? Or last? How much do extra supplies weigh? Does EDS have lots of insulation (does it do TLI?)? Is LSAM more margin sensitive?)

[ApolloLee]

Nice new video on Bigelow's site: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/Genesis_I_Earth_Rotate.php

[josh_simonson]

Since the Depot doesn't require any Delta-V changes, it can afford the weight of LH2 reliquification hardware.  The main issue with that is the weight of the equipment and power supply for it are prohibitive on a spacecraft, but this is not the case on a relatively immobile platform.  With regular use the weight of this gear would easilly be recouperated in LH2 savings.