Cryogenic propellant management architectures to support the Space Exploration Initiative

Cady, E. C.; Corban, Robert R.; Stevenson, S. M.

doi:10.2514/6.1990-3713

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Nomenclaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…When compared with the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) mode that was eventually selected, this EOR mode had the lowest launch vehicle mass, but it also had the highest risk because it depended on back-to-back vehicle launches and the development of a propellant transfer capability [2]. During these architecture studies, NASA even considered propellant transfer on the lunar surface to drive down launch vehicle mass [4], as shown in Fig. 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With NASA shifting its focus back toward exploration, propellant transfer returns to the discussion, adding new possibilities for sending humans beyond LEO. It is an essential strategy that can improve missions as grand as sending humans to the moon or Mars [4] to missions as routine as maintaining a Global Positioning System constellation [6]. 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].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Nomenclaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…These studies have generally focused on its implementation in lunar and Mars exploration missions. (5,6,7) The use of on-orbit re-fueling has always offered the possibility of greatly improving the payload capability for these missions, but the cost of delivering propellant to LEO has generally been considered to costly to make these architectures economically viable. In much of the previous work little has been focused on how the propellant will be delivered to LEO, and it is generally assumed that this will occur via the same launch vehicle that delivers the crew and cargo to LEO.…”

Section: On Orbit Propellant Re-fuelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Lunar Architecture Simulation Environment for Evaluating the Use of Propellant Re-Supply

Young

Wilhite

2007

AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) 1 produced a transportation architecture for returning humans to the moon affordably and safely, while using commercial services for tasks such as cargo delivery to low earth orbit (LEO). Another potential utilization of commercial services is the delivery of cryogenic propellants to LEO for use in lunar exploration activities. With in-space propellant re-supply available, there is the potential to increase the payload that can be delivered to the lunar surface, increase lunar mission durations, and enable a wider range of lunar missions. The addition of onorbit propellant re-supply would have far-reaching effects on the entire exploration architecture. Currently 70% of the weight delivered to LEO by the cargo launch vehicle is propellant needed for the TLI burn. This is a considerable burden and significantly limits the design freedom of the architecture. The ability of commercial providers to deliver cryogenic propellants to LEO may provide for lower cost and better performing lunar architecture. A model of this architecture has been developed to measure the performance, cost, reliability, mission success rate, and various other criteria for a lunar architecture built around propellant re-supply. This model will provide insight into how the addition of propellant re-supply will affect each aspect of a lunar campaign and help measure the benefits and costs associated with the development and utilization of this capability. The environment itself has been developed using parametric models of the individual architecture elements to allow for the quick evaluation of different architecture trades. A morphological matrix of the different trades considered is provided in Figure 1. This provides an easy to follow outline of the different trades studies conducted using this simulation environment. In addition to being able to quickly asses different architecture designs the simulation environment must be able to provide accurate results. A validation test case was done using the results from the ESAS. The results of this validation showed that the models could predict the results of this architecture within 2-3%. The analysis also includes multi-criteria decision making analysis so that a ranking of the alternatives can be found for a given weighting scenario. This allows for all of the figures of merit to be included in the decision making process. The results of the simulation will allow a decision maker to evaluate the different architecture options against the baseline design and determine what figures of merit are improved with the inclusion of propellant re-supply and if this new capability provides for a better opportunity to meet the needs of future exploration missions.

show abstract

Cryogenic thermal system analysis for orbital propellant depot

Chai

Wilhite

2014

Acta Astronautica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cryogenic propellant management architectures to support the Space Exploration Initiative

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Development of a Lunar Architecture Simulation Environment for Evaluating the Use of Propellant Re-Supply

Cryogenic thermal system analysis for orbital propellant depot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About