NASA Hid Cheaper In-space Fuel Depots Option To Get a Heavy Lift Rocket!

Source

Space Ref - On 26 September 2011, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) issued apress release regarding fuel depots. This included a letter to former Administrator Mike Griffin who had dismissed the notion of fuel depots and commercial launch vehicles as being a viable alternative to the Space Launch System(SLS) during Congressional testimony.

An internal NASA study found the fuel depot option to be $79 billion cheaper ($64 billion versus $143 billion) than a Space Launch System option and the fuel depot option would be 5 years faster for Near earth Asteroid mission.

Rohrabacher noted "When NASA proposed on-orbit fuel depots in this Administration's original plan for human space exploration, they said this game-changing technology could make the difference between exploring space and falling short. Then the depots dropped out of the conversation, and NASA has yet to provide any supporting documents explaining the change," says Rohrabacher."

NASA had actually been rather busy studying those very topics. The conclusions that NASA arrived at during these studies are in direct contrast to what the agency had been telling Congress, the media, and anyone else who would listen.

This presentation "Propellant Depot Requirements Study - Status Report - HAT Technical Interchange Meeting - July 21, 2011" (69 pages)" is a distilled version of a study buried deep inside of NASA. The study compared and contrasted an SLS/SEP architecture with one based on propellant depots for human lunar and asteroid missions. Not only was the fuel depot mission architecture shown to be less expensive, fitting within expected budgets, it also gets humans beyond low Earth orbit a decade before the SLS architecture could.

I am shocked by this level of corruption, but not surprised. This needs to go viral. Mike Griffin and his administration should be held accountable.

I knew they were not playing a fair game ever since they started to speak about the new expensive SLS instead of the logical choice, medium-EELV route with commercial launchers.

Damn you Griffin for delaying human spaceflight for at least 5 years to satisfy your greed.

eh, not shocking. government space programs are pointless because of corruption like this. The true growth in the industry will be from the private sector like Virigin galactic, once competitors start making it farther and cheaper. That is when you will see the capitalist system make the idea take off.

Who said that is an original document? If it is an original document, why does it have www.nasawatch.com on it? If it is an official NASA document, is it available to the general public? At their website? If not, who got that document and how?

Originally posted by henriquefd
Who said that is an original document? If it is an original document, why does it have www.nasawatch.com on it? If it is an official NASA document, is it available to the general public? At their website? If not, who got that document and how?

^ This.
Plus, so what if they did.

Originally posted by Maslo
I am shocked by this level of corruption, but not surprised. This needs to go viral. Mike Griffin and his administration should be held accountable.

I knew they were not playing a fair game ever since they started to speak about the new expensive SLS instead of the logical choice, medium-EELV route with commercial launchers.

Damn you Griffin for delaying human spaceflight for at least 5 years to satisfy your greed.

edit on 19/10/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Bolden is the NASA administrator now, so why blame this on Griffin? Ideally Bolden should be promoting the fuel depot because Obama supposedly supports these kinds of innovations.

It is pretty sad no matter who is behind it.

Have you reviewed the PDF you linked here, it's a study, there are hundreds of studies, most all of them don't get beyond a study due to funding, which I thought Obama cancelled. A lot of those modules look surprisingly similar to the Orion and Constellation programs.

What is NASA Watch?

The authors of that PDF seemed to feel that in-space fuel depots would make a heavy launch rocket unnecessary, so I hope their view got a fair hearing. I have a feeling NASA would have been better off to stick with Ares if the end result is SLS.

reply to post by Maslo


Damn, this could be big! It's coming from a Republican though, so it can't yet assumed to be credible. With further media confirmation of the facts though, this can potentially become quite an issue.

Which comes first....the space depots... or the heavy lift rocket to get the space depots in space?

I assume...maybe iggnorantly so... that in order to get space depots up and in orbit, you have to build them and get them there... or you have to get the parts up into orbit and build them there... either way, you need a launch vehicle to do so.

And if we build them in space, who builds them?...where do they stay?... the shuttle is supposedly over with... so how do we get the materials and infrastructure in orbit to build and support a orbital gas station?

If we build them here on Earth, they will be impacted by gravity...and I guess we are talking about thousands of gallons of fuel to fill the depot once it is there.... again, you need a heavy lift vehicle... unless you want a small vehicle to make numerous trips...so lots of fuel burned in one trip...or lots of fuel burned in numerous trips.

And if we are talking about some advanced propulsion system that doesn't require a lot of fuel...ie fusion, nuclear? I don't know...then we don't need the fuel depot to begin with...

I read a book years ago..."Colonies In Space." The idea was to establish self sufficient colonies in Earth orbit... some were for manufacturing, some for food production, some for processing, some for housing, etc...they were all linked. They got their raw materials from either asteroids or the Moon... low gravity or no gravity...and the space ships and rockets were literally built in space to avoid the need for Earth borne launches of materials and using up limited resources.

It further presented the idea of a "Pony Express" set up of stationary space colonies/stations to the Moon and Mars and beyond... kinda like truck stops in space...I like that..."Truck Stops In Spaaaaacce!!!!!!"

reply to post by AlreadyGone

Which comes first....the space depots... or the heavy lift rocket to get the space depots in space?

No need for a heavy lift rocket, space depots can be launched on an existing medium lift rockets easily, their empty weight is no bigger than 20 tons.

And if we build them in space, who builds them?...where do they stay?

United launch alliance has well developed plans for a fuel depot based on their Centaur upper stage. Ideal position for depots are low Earth orbit and/or Lagrange points.

unless you want a small vehicle to make numerous trips...so lots of fuel burned in one trip...or lots of fuel burned in numwerous trips.

Rocket market is chronically launch-starved. More launches are desirable to push the cost per launch/kilogram down.

reply to post by Maslo


Now see... I learned something...you just underscored the part where I said..." iggnorantly so"....

Thanks...

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Which comes first....the space depots... or the heavy lift rocket to get the space depots in space?

That cracked me up also.

Did you see the presentation that showed it took some 38 Falcon Heavy launches to have an operational space fuel depot? Wonder where all of those rockets, and fuel containers go from Falcon Heavies? Right, disposable and supposed to burn up upon reentry.

So they hid space fuel depots to get heavies that need heavies to launch a space fuel depot, or just litter LEO with metal cans and the oceans with reentry surviving metal, volatiles, and disposable rocket engines, of which I saw plans for the Falcon Heavy to use 30 such rocket engines each vehicle's first stage, for a 200 some second burn.

reply to post by Illustronic

Did you see the presentation that showed it took some 38 Falcon Heavy launches to have an operational space fuel depot?

Where is this presentation you speak of? An empty fuel depot is not heavy at all, and can be launched on currently flying rockets. Filling it up is just a matter of finding the lowest cost per kilogram of fuel delivered available.

Wonder where all of those rockets, and fuel containers go from Falcon Heavies? Right, disposable and supposed to burn up upon reentry.

Falcon Heavy is supposed to be reusable in the long term.

www.space.com...

reply to post by Maslo


You know why they don't launch a full tank into orbit? Because it's too heavy. Does adding heavy launches to fill the tank sound economical to you? Think of 4-5 Falcon Heavies strapped together, to lift one full tank 170% heavier than what one Saturn V that put up in one launch to earth escape velocity, the moon, and back.

The tank isn't light, and isn't fuel usually 85-90% liftoff weight? It's in your OP link. Nothing about the 'desire' for Space X to have reusable heavy and 2nd stage boosters, (that was in this last link I read months ago). The part about using the second stage to lift the tank to that 407 km altitude and shutting down leaving a half full tank makes some sense, but still why double the launches for the fuel, and then add launches for the manned modules, up to 5 additional launches ALL WITH HEAVIES.

Again this was a study, for mission plans, that were killed years ago by budget cuts.

reply to post by Illustronic

You know why they don't launch a full tank into orbit? Because it's too heavy. Does adding heavy launches to fill the tank sound economical to you?

Yes, it does. As I said, launch market is chronically launch starved. There are capabilities which are payed for and then mostly unused (which drives the costs up). There is no need for another rocket, certainly not a behemoth like Ares or SLS. Falcon 9, Heavy or ULA rockets could easily fly dozens of times a year, and it would still be more economical than developing a new NASA multibillion superheavy lifter.

but still why double the launches for the fuel, and then add launches for the manned modules, up to 5 additional launches ALL WITH HEAVIES.

Why not? Is there a better alternative?

I like the idea of the in-space fuel depots, because SLS has no purpose other than to launch a manned mission like Apollo, and NASA will never get enough money to do that. It's better to work on a design for the in-space fuel depots and never build them. Then spend the limited money on unmanned exploration.