Propellant Depots for Earth Orbit and Lunar Exploration

Chandler, Frank O.; Bienhoff, Dallas; Cronick, Jeffrey; Grayson, Gary

doi:10.2514/6.2007-6081

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Orbital fueling of the EDS provides the opportunity to increase the lunar delivered payload by over 20 mT 8 , Figure 3. Other independent studies have found similar results 9,10 . Such a large performance enhancement not only closes Despite positive comments by Griffin regarding the use of propellant depots to support space exploration 11 their use for near term lunar missions has been assumed to be too technically challenging.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 70%

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

Kutter

Zegler

Pitchford

et al. 2008

AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mankind is embarking on the next step in the journey of human exploration. We are returning to the moon and eventually moving to Mars and beyond. The current Exploration architecture seeks a balance between the need for a robust infrastructure on the lunar surface, and the performance limitations of Ares I and V. The ability to refuel or top-off propellant tanks from orbital propellant depots offers NASA the opportunity to cost effectively and reliably satisfy these opposing requirements. The ability to cache large orbital quantities of propellant is also an enabling capability for missions to Mars and beyond. This paper describes an option for a propellant depot that enables orbital refueling supporting Exploration, national security, science and other space endeavors. This proposed concept is launched using a single EELV medium class rocket and thus does not require any orbital assembly. The propellant depot provides cryogenic propellant storage that utilizes flight proven technologies augmented with technologies currently under development. The propellant depot system, propellant management, flight experience, and key technologies are also discussed. Options for refueling the propellant depot along with an overview of Exploration architecture impacts are also presented.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 70%

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

Kutter

Zegler

Pitchford

et al. 2008

AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lower overall cost, less risk, and fewer uncertainties in design and operation render the cryogenic fuel depot the primary candidate for enabling future long-duration missions. Example concepts of fuel depots exist in the literature, e.g., [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical Modeling of the Transient Chilldown of a Cryogenic Propellant Transfer Line

Hartwig

Vera

2016

Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before cryogenic fuel depots can be fully realized, efficient methods with which to chill down the spacecraft transfer line and receiver tank are required. This paper presents numerical modeling of the chilldown of a liquid hydrogen tankto-tank propellant transfer line using the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program. To compare with data from recently concluded turbulent liquid hydrogen chilldown experiments, seven different cases were run across a range of inlet liquid temperatures and mass flow rates. Both trickle and pulse chilldown methods were simulated. The Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program model qualitatively matches external skin-mounted temperature readings, but large differences are shown between measured and predicted internal stream temperatures. Discrepancies are attributed to the simplified model correlation used to compute two-phase flow, boiling heat transfer. Flow visualization from testing shows that the initial bottoming out of skin-mounted sensors corresponds to annular flow but that considerable time is required for the stream sensor to achieve steady state as the system moves through annular, churn, and bubbly flows. The Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program model does adequately well in tracking trends in the data, but further work is needed to refine the two-phase flow modeling to better match observed test data. Nomenclature C p = specific heat, J∕kg · K k = thermal conductivity, W∕m · K Nu = Nusselt number Pr = Prandtl number Re = Reynolds number t closed = valve-off time, s t open = valve-on time, s u = fluid velocity, m∕s x = quality Y = mass fraction μ = viscosity, Pa · s ρ = density, kg∕m 3

show abstract

“…1, 2 Without significant breakthroughs in propulsion system technology, the fastest approach to create a more economical exploration architecture is to determine a more efficient method to deliver and store propellant in orbit. Past studies [3][4][5][6] have examined the potential benefits of the utilization of orbiting propellant depots, with emphasis on low Earth orbit operation. Recently, there has been an emphasis on placing architecture assets in cis-lunar space, particularly the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Station Keeping for Earth-Moon Lagrangian Point Exploration Architectural Assets

Chai

Wilhite

2012

AIAA SPACE 2012 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2010 National Space Policy set wide reaching goals for the United States space program, however these milestones are in serious jeopardy due the economic down turn and budget restrictions. There is an increasing need to examine the current exploration architecture to determine if there are more economical, yet still technically feasible options. The Earth-Moon Lagrangian points in the cis-lunar space have long been proposed as staging points to enable lunar colonization and missions to Mars and other planetary bodies. The placement of an orbital propellant depot near Lagrangian points enables a more robust and economical way to accomplish NASA's exploration goals. The primary technical challenge of placing assets near the L1 and L2 points is the inherent instability of orbits around the Lagrangian points. Trajectory simulation of in-plane Lyapunov orbit shows that near the Earth-Moon L1 point, the station keeping cost decreases as the orbital altitude decreases, however, the insertion cost increases as the altitude decreases. Similar trajectory simulation shows that a 9,000km altitude L2 Lyapunov orbit provides a minimum station keeping cost as well as low insertion cost. The phasing of the Earth-Moon orbital plane makes the departure orbit inclination a viable candidate for optimization as well.

show abstract

Propellant Depots for Earth Orbit and Lunar Exploration

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

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

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

Numerical Modeling of the Transient Chilldown of a Cryogenic Propellant Transfer Line

Station Keeping for Earth-Moon Lagrangian Point Exploration Architectural Assets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About