Fuel depots and the elements of a NewSpace architecture

Jon Goff praises the DIRECT v2.0 alternative lunar exploration program, especially its use of orbital fuel depots: DIRECT v2.0 and Orbital Propellant Transfer - Selenian Boondocks

Mr. X also believes that it is time for NASA to push development of on-orbit propellant transfer: Chariot of the Sun-God - Chair Force Engineer
===

Looks to me that the NewSpace "architecture" for space development over the next decade is gradually coalescing around the following elements:

* Suborbital spaceflight will (1) develop robust RLV technologies that lead long term to "re-fuel and fly" orbital transports and (2) encourage the growth of new markets, especially space tourism.

* Lower cost orbital vehicles like the SpaceX Falcons and AirLaunch QuickReach systems will cut access to space to 20-30% of current prices on the short term.

* Orbital habitats from Bigelow will (1) provide commercial destinations that greatly expand orbital space tourism as well as attract new astronaut programs from governments around the world; (2) expand the market for commercial orbital cargo/crew delivery services; and (3) help overcome the chicken-egg / bootstrapping situation in which you have little reason for low cost (i.e. high flight rate) launchers until you have a high traffic destination and vice versa.

* Orbital fuel depots, as discussed above, offer tremendous advantages for deep space missions. They also benefit LEO operations and provide another market to encourage low cost commercial launchers.

* Standardize cargo carriers like those from CSI and Spachab, which can be carried by a different vehicles, provide economic benefits similar to those on earth.

* Space tugs tie all the in-space elements together.

Even without NASA's support, it looks like the private sector can get these elements into action eventually. However, if NASA could be brought on board, it will happen a lot sooner and on a bigger scale and greatly benefit the agency in doing so.

Posted 09/23/07 | 13:45:22 by TopSpacer | Filed under: NewSpace

Comments

direct will have all the problems of Ares,
it's just not yet obvious

Posted by anonymous at 09/23/07 21:37:56

Really? Did you read the proposal? Care to elaborate. You must know a lot more than the rest of us.

The same problems, like, low commonality between shuttle - Jupiter, huge upfront costs, huge new infra reqs, maintaining 2 vehicles, etc...

Do let us know anonymous.

Posted by Stick fanboy? at 09/23/07 22:43:39

The private sector will have to lay money down, seriously. By that I mean financial institutions will have to take risks, like they did in the past. this will eventually get us what we so desire here.

Not just 'space stations' and refuelling facilities but repair shops, those tugs and stuff will become life expired and break down and will need fixing. yes, even grabbing those redundant com-sats for recycling (most of which will just need new panels, circuit repair and refuelling[a more major task...])

I guess easier for us to imagine the possibilities than the financial institutions...

Posted by Jess L at 09/24/07 07:50:34

Jess:

Those financial institutions will be quite reluctant to fund said infrastructure projects if the anchor tenant (NASA) is intent on building an architecture of infrequently-flying government-operated rockets that avoid on-orbit assembly and operation at all costs.

Posted by John Kavanagh at 09/24/07 11:20:53

"I guess easier for us to imagine the possibilities than the financial institutions..."

All of the NewSpace style conferences I've been to in the past few years have had lots of presentations and panel discussions dealing with financial issues. It is always emphasized that it is too early to look for funding from institutional sources like banks. They cannot accept the risks involved with unproven technologies aimed for unproven markets. However, as Elon Musk says in this interview
http://www.nasaspaceflight....
Once there is a successful IPO for a new launch company, then the number of investment sources will greatly increase. (I expect they will for other types of NewSpace firms as well.)

In the meantime, there is probably a billion to two billion dollars, depending on how you count and who you count, of money that will go into NewSpace style ventures (launchers, spaceports, space habitats, etc.) over the next few years. This comes mostly from angel investment. However, some venture capital money is starting to trickle in. There is also some government money (COTS, SBIRs, local spaceport funding, etc).

Regarding repair services and so forth, it's definitely true that the basic elements that I listed will need those sorts of activities to come alive and form a real space-based community. I think the whole issue of how to get an in-space economy going is quite fascinating and something I've been thinking a lot about.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 09/24/07 14:53:14

Has anyone articulated how this is all supposed to actually happen? I.e., how NASA, that paragon of institutional agility, skids to a stop on its headlong rush to nowhere, and then changes course in favor of this proposal? I can more easily imagine the entire Ares/Orion program just being cancelled, because that requires no more consensus than a lack of support.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at 09/24/07 17:20:14

If NASA could be brought on board I'm sure it would happen a lot later on a much smaller scale and cost a whole lot more money.

I suspect that when private industry puts all the pieces in place, things will start moving along much faster than anyone is now willing to give it credit for.

Posted by Rob Abiera at 09/24/07 18:21:02

Brian:

When the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX start to fly commercial orbital transportation services, the proven supply side of the LEO launch/rendezvous/docking & delivery market will start to permeate NASA's exploration architecture.

The more embarrassing the cost and time-to-market of private spaceflight compares to Ares the more likely NASA will adjust course.

Fantastic corollary: if Bigelow had flown prototype habitats before NASA had assembled ISS, would NASA have leased orbital lab space on a private complex?

Posted by John Kavanagh at 09/24/07 19:16:03

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.