A Practical, Affordable Cryogenic Propellant Depot Based on ULA's Flight Experience

Kutter, Bernard; Zegler, Frank; Pitchford, Brian; Alliance, United Launch

doi:10.2514/6.2008-7644

Cited by 28 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, purely passive thermal control measures can reduce hydrogen boiloff of propellants stored in Cislunar space to under 10% per year. 17 The propellant processing system is located on the lunar surface and consists of several subsystems. The propellant production system architecture is shown in Figure 4.…”

Section: Propellant Production Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Business Case for Lunar Ice Mining

Sowers

2021

New Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The key to human expansion into space and space development, in general, is developing space activities that deliver value in an economic sense. In other words, the key to space development is making money in space, that is, profit. However, the search for money making space activities has proven elusive. We present a business case for a commercial company to mine lunar ice and process the ice into rocket propellant. We discuss the existing and future markets for propellant and an architecture for mining and processing propellant and the associated costs. We then examine 3 scenarios, 1 commercial stand-alone and 2 involving a public/private partnership (PPP) model with NASA. We provide a comparison with other similar analyses. Business returns are positive for all 3 scenarios, although the PPP models provide increased returns and share risk with the government. Once established, lunar-sourced propellant will dramatically reduce the cost of all beyond low Earth orbit space activities and potentially enable other profitable commercial ventures to emerge.

show abstract

Section: Propellant Production Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Business Case for Lunar Ice Mining

Sowers

2021

New Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing architectural variations would make the model too complex for the present purposes. This paper will also ignore the possibility of transportation architectures using propellant depots in cislunar space [9][10][11][12]. The business case for depots is broader than just propellant sale and would complicate the analysis.…”

Section: Assumptions and Ground Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modification of Roberts' Theory for Rocket Exhaust Plumes Eroding Lunar Soil

Metzger

Lane

Immer

2008

Earth &Amp;amp; Space 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2ASRC Aerospace, MD: ASRC-15, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 John.Lane-1 (ksc.nasa. gov , Christopher.D. Immer(ksc.nasa.gov BACKGROUND TO ROBERTS' THEORY In preparation for the Apollo program, Leonard Roberts developed a remarkable analytical theory that predicts the blowing of lunar soil and dust beneath a rocket exhaust plume. Roberts' assumed that the erosion rate is determined by the "excess shear stress" in the gas (the amount of shear stress greater than what causes grains to roll). The acceleration of particles to their final velocity in the gas consumed a portion of the shear stress. The erosion rate continues to increase until the excess shear stress is exactly consumed, thus determining the erosion rate. He calculated the largest and smallest particles that could be eroded based on forces at the particle scale, but the erosion rate equation assumes that only one particle size exists in the soil. He assumed that particle ejection angles are determined entirely by the shape of the terrain, which acts like a ballistic ramp, the particle aerodynamics being negligible. The predicted erosion rate and particle upper size limit appeared to be within an order of magnitude of small-scale terrestrial experiments, but could not be tested more quantitatively at the time. The lower particle size limit and ejection angle predictions were not tested.

show abstract

“…As recently as 2004, NASA engineers studied the use of a propellant depot in LEO that could provide propellant to support both near-Earth operations and exploration missions [7]. The commercial sector is also developing this strategy by exploring propellant depot and delivery system concepts [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orbital Propellant Depots Enabling Lunar Architectures Without Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicles

Arney

Wilhite

2010

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many human lunar exploration architectures, both flown and conceptual, use at least one heavy-lift launch vehicle to deliver flight hardware to low Earth orbit. There exists a technology, however, that allows these large exploration missions to be performed without the use of a heavy-lift launch vehicle: propellant transfer. This study presents a methodology to incorporate propellant transfer into conceptual design of lunar architectures through the use of a low-Earth-orbit propellant depot. This technology is then applied to a two-launch human lunar architecture without a heavy-lift launch vehicle. The results show that not only is a lunar architecture without a heavy-lift launch vehicle feasible with a propellant depot, but it can also improve the capability to deliver payload to the surface over an architecture that includes a heavy-lift launch vehicle without a propellant depot. The optimal lunar lander for this architecture is a hypergolic lander with a deck height of only 1.53 meters that performs only a portion of the descent burn, while the trans-lunar injection stage performs the other portion. The hypergolic propellant allows for a simpler, less expensive propulsion system, a volumetrically smaller lander, and enables the use of the existing hypergolic propellant transfer technology. Nomenclature= specific impulse, s MR = mass ratio, initial mass/final mass m = mass, kg V = change in velocity, m=s Introduction F OR human exploration of the moon and Mars, both flown and conceptual, at least one heavy-lift launch vehicle, defined as capable of delivering >100 mt payload to low Earth orbit (LEO), is included in a typical architecture for delivery of in-space transportation elements and mission payload [1-3]. These heavy-lift launch vehicles are a major cost driver for these architectures and thus a major inhibitor of a human lunar or Mars space exploration program. Therefore, it would be desirable to develop a smaller launch vehicle that is still capable of delivering a large payload to the lunar surface. The impetus of this study is to determine if manned lunar missions are possible without a heavy-lift launch vehicle by using a propellant depot in LEO.For typical exploration missions using a heavy-lift launch vehicle, the propellant mass can account for up to 75% of the total launched mass [4]. A near-term strategy using relatively small launch vehicles is on-orbit propellant transfer, where separate vehicles are used to deliver the propellant and flight hardware. Although other depot locations are possible, this study examines a LEO propellant depot. Through the use of an orbiting propellant depot, propellant is stored in LEO and then transferred to the flight hardware just before translunar injection (TLI). Propellant can be delivered to the depot in separate launches using the most efficient launch system available. By only delivering the largest discrete payload mass with the launch vehicle, the flight hardware which is only 25% of the total LEO mass, the required size and cost of the launch vehicle ...

show abstract

A Practical, Affordable Cryogenic Propellant Depot Based on ULA's Flight Experience

Cited by 28 publications

References 9 publications

The Business Case for Lunar Ice Mining

The Business Case for Lunar Ice Mining

Modification of Roberts' Theory for Rocket Exhaust Plumes Eroding Lunar Soil

Orbital Propellant Depots Enabling Lunar Architectures Without Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About