Is this the dawning of the age of Aquarius?

[Sam Fraser]

The ultra low-cost Aquarius launch system, that is:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aquarius.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/fcrossman/NorCalSAMPE/Comp_WS_papers/Turner_012204.pdf

* Proposed expendable, water launch, single-stage-to-orbit, LOX/LH2, low-cost launch vehicle
* 1,000 kg / 2200 lb to LEO $600K per launch at ~100 launches per year.
* Low-cost, easily-replaced consumables such as water, fuel,
food, and air
* Low-margin vehicle built using non-white-glove labor and facilities.
* Low margins are consistent with one-third failure rate
* Launch failures acceptable since intrinsic value of replaceable consumables low

YouTube clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHawjnn4Ak (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Mko5sC5yM (part 2)

I personally don't advocate PERMANENT developing its own launch capacity as a first or early stage. We want to use off-the-shelf (or off-the-pad) as much as possible. However, if it's decided the moon should be the first target for a commercial venture e.g. a powersat, volatiles the moon lacks and other necessities could be launched cheaply and relatively quickly from Earth using a system derived from Aquarius.

[JohnHunt]

This looks very feasible. To the video I would add that fuel could be delivered to an orbital depot, or, do we really need just one location for an orbital depot or would there be any advantage to having a constellation of orbital propellant? I would also add that this could really open up the rest of the solar system as relatively inexpensive fuel could be delivered to LEO in support of Earth Departure Stages.

But I would like to ask a question. Would $600/kg beat out mining of lunar water to LEO?

Do you think that an Aquarius launch system would have difficulty getting 100 launches per year. Are GEO (or other) satellites presently set up to receive on-orbit refueling? My guess is that they are not. So such a system might not be useful until new satellites are configured to receive in-orbit refueling.

Just out of curiosity, how difficult is it to maintain cryogenic fuel in orbit? Might it be better to transport water and then, by solar power, produce LOX/LH2 on demand?

[Sam Fraser]

Good question. The $600/kg figure is only to LEO, as Aquarius is foreseen as resupplying the ISS. The system we'd need would have to send all the way to the moon. (We'd also need a space tug in LLO to catch these regular payloads, like the Aquarius system envisions.) I'm no engineer, so I can't do any quick, rough calculations on how much bigger and therefore more expensive Aquarius boosters would have to be.

As for beating out lunar water, maybe not. We need water in large quantities, which is the easiest thing to produce on the moon if there's already water ice there. Assuming an Aquarius system would be at least 3x more expensive for moonshots and launches small regular payloads of only 1000kg/2200 lbs, it wouldn't be practical to use Earth to supply all our water needs. However, Aquarius could be reserved for "low-cost" but nevertheless valuable volatiles, as well as dried foodstuffs etc. For example, a certain amount of nitrogen is needed for life support but is essentially recycled and needs little replenishing.

[Rhyshaelkan]

After you opened my eyes to the actual number of alternate launch systems, Sam, I will have to cheer everyone on. Quite cool to have options and alternatives. Allows for a bidding/pricing war, which will only help those such as PERMANENT that are trying to make space-based economy happen.

[moonus111]

I've always thought that any Earth-Moon economy would be dominated by the trade of energy for carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen (maybe oxygen)... or better put solar panels for fertilizer. The problem that I always saw with the whole concept was that it would be very little fertilizer for a solar panel.... this can even that theoretical future market out.

This is a very good illustration of why terms like SSTO and reusable are not suitable for human passengers. They reduce safety and reliability; increase risk and maintenance. Space Shuttle anyone?

[Phenix]

This is a very good illustration of why terms like SSTO and reusable are not suitable for human passengers. They reduce safety and reliability; increase risk and maintenance. Space Shuttle anyone?

What does SSTO mean ? The "reusable" term can be realized in different ways and adapted to constraints. I would find that "reusable" objects are very flexible as being by essence "reconditionned".

Also objects that can be reconditionned creates jobs...

[Rhyshaelkan]

Single Stage To Orbit. Which usually means the whole craft is re-useable.

[Phenix]

Single Stage To Orbit. Which usually means the whole craft is re-useable.

Thanks for the explanation Rhys :)

[Rhyshaelkan]

The problems are making it feasible.

Any more I think we will have to have it dirty and wasteful until we get to space and make space-based-space-industry happen.

In space perhaps we can find better metallurgical techniques to build lighter craft. Future Earth-launch space vehicles might be built in space before descending to be used as launch vehicles.

Such as the elusive space-plane. For now they are too heavy and carry too little fuel to make it to LEO for transfer to an OTV.



Edit: I would love to see a space-plane make it to 120km orbit and transfer 100t of cargo to an OTV. And then descend the same way. But it just will not happen yet.

[Sam Fraser]

Have any studies been done on how the existence of fuel depots in LEO for deorbit fuel would impact designs of RLVs including SSTO vehicles? My understanding is if such a vehicle doesn't need to carry its own fuel for deorbit, exotic and incredibly expensive technologies and materials don't need to be developed and incorporated into the design to save weight. For example, why bother with expensive and experimental scramjets or carbon/epoxy cryogenic hydrogen tanks to save every last gram if on-orbit refuelling is possible? I imagine the carrying capacity of the RLV, whether payload or humans, could also be increased, perhaps significantly, while the use of cheaper, simpler and off-the-shelf components would lower R&D costs and make the vehicle more reliable overall.

[Phenix]

Salut Sam :).

I am all for the Aquarius concept because of most of the aspects it help so much to have volatiles for many projects and has huge potential on the future market because of being reusable.

On the volatile depots locations, it would be ideal to have them at both LEO and GEO. As for GEO, it would be crutial to starting up bootstrapping from a space factory.

[Rhyshaelkan]

The Shuttle did not require much to deorbit. One Orbital Maneuvering System burn. If you had a space plane it could possibly deorbit in the same way as the shuttle using the friction of the Earth's atmosphere to carry much of the burden. I would have to look up some shuttle studies, because I can remember someone saying that the shuttle does not have to use such fragile Thermal Protective Systems.

[Phenix]

I thinking of balloons that could take the rockets to high altitude and save propellant for their target being in either LEO or GOE to deliver the remaining volatiles as container. Does is sound feasible ?
I think there is thread already showing the concept elsewhere.

[moonus111]

It's a good idea, but the vast majority of energy expended by a rocket is for gaining speed, not for altitude. That's not to say that every bit helps.

[Rhyshaelkan]

As with everything cost : benefit ratios. I have been having much fun comparing the various launch systems around the world. Because once you know a target price for launch ±, then you can work on the relative weight fairing size of what you want to launch.

Or size first and weight later with money not an object(though we all know money is always an issue).

What is your plan?

What do you need to accomplish your plan?

What size launcher(s) will you need?

All can be fun and frustrating.

Especially if you are not an engineer, who can say hard numbers.

[RaresH]

I thinking of balloons that could take the rockets to high altitude and save propellant for their target being in either LEO or GOE to deliver the remaining volatiles as container. Does is sound feasible ?
I think there is thread already showing the concept elsewhere.

Yes there is a thread about that very concept. You can find the thread here http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/showthread.php?t=294.