NASA is awarding 14 companies over $370 million to develop space and lunar exploration technologies. The bulk of the awards concern in-orbit refueling:
With these awards, the space agency is leaning heavily into technologies related to the collection, storage, and transfer of cryogenic propellants in space. Four of the awards, totaling more than $250 million, will go to companies specifically for "cryogenic fluid management" tech demonstrations:
- Eta Space of Merritt Island, Florida, $27 million. Small-scale flight demonstration of a complete cryogenic oxygen fluid management system. System will be the primary payload on a Rocket Lab Photon satellite and collect critical cryogenic fluid management data in orbit for nine months.
- Lockheed Martin of Littleton, Colorado, $89.7 million. In-space demonstration mission using liquid hydrogen to test more than a dozen cryogenic fluid management technologies, positioning them for infusion into future space systems.
- SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, $53.2 million. Large-scale flight demonstration to transfer 10 metric tons of cryogenic propellant, specifically liquid oxygen, between tanks on a Starship vehicle.
- United Launch Alliance (ULA) of Centennial, Colorado, $86.2 million. Demonstration of a smart propulsion cryogenic system, using liquid oxygen and hydrogen, on a Vulcan Centaur upper stage. The system will test precise tank-pressure control, tank-to-tank transfer, and multiweek propellant storage.
2020 NASA Tipping Point Selections.
Also at Teslarati.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NASA Invests Over $256 Million to Develop In-Orbit Refueling Technologies
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 16 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 15 2020, @05:33PM (2 children)
I just figure that Musk has this halfway worked out by now. I strongly suspect that some fueling operations are going to be needed for his Mars mission. Ahhh, yes - see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program#Mars_propellant_plant_and_base [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday October 15 2020, @05:44PM
They've got the plans, but they need Starships in orbit first. To that end, they are attempting the first Starship static fire with 3 Raptor engines [teslarati.com] within the next couple of days, in preparation for a 50,000 ft / 15 km test flight.
This is some extra money for something they already intended to do. They were previously awarded $3 million for it. [spacenews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 15 2020, @08:34PM
He's smoked the fatty, sketched the napkin - details are for the drones to work out, just like Edison.
I'm pretty impressed with how much cheaper the RocketLab based investigation is than the others, particularly since it is on-orbit for 9 months.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 15 2020, @06:22PM (5 children)
Fuel depots in space are totally unnecessary. [arstechnica.com] The SLS will be able to launch heavy enough payloads that refueling in orbit won't be needed. Dollar bills are a good combustible rocket fuel along with clean coal.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 15 2020, @06:29PM (3 children)
It seems though, that SLS is some years behind SpaceX development. SLS might put a man on Mars sometime before 2050. SpaceX seems to be more than a decade ahead of the SLS people. Which is nice, I guess. When SLS arrives, SpaceX can give them a nice home warming party.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday October 15 2020, @06:47PM
It's practically done and ready to fly in late 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Planned_launches [wikipedia.org]
That could slip into 2022 for reasons. Or it could fail spectacularly.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 15 2020, @09:38PM (1 child)
As takyon points out just above, SLS may try in 2021. Thus SLS may beat SpaceX putting a
manperson-of-any-gender on Mars if Boeing can make the SLS launch explosion powerful enough.The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2020, @11:23PM
FTFY
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 15 2020, @10:42PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2020, @06:53PM (2 children)
man, those 'em numbers again *sheesh*
anyways, on topic, it looks like the whole sum would have to add to zero?
so with liquids and swirls and friction it should be interesting to see how this liquid transfer in zero G ..uhm .. evens out.
if using a pump in zeroG the pump will have to "hold on" to something whilst imparting impulse to the pumped liquid;
so the liquid goes left and the structure the pumps holds on to goes the other way?
maybe "liquid transfer in zeroG" is more like having a balloon with a liquid fuel in a cargo bay, like the space shuttle had one,
opening the hatches, releasing the fuel-balloon, moving spacecraft A away from it, and then spaceship B captures it with its bay?
who knows, maybe with pipes and pumps and LIQUIDS (no balloons or "bags of fuel") in zeroG a
special case of "apple falls from tree" emerges? *cross finger it doesn't involve a disaster to find*
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday October 15 2020, @06:58PM
Some discussion here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48706.80 [nasaspaceflight.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2020, @10:07PM
Counter rotating pumps neutralize torque effect I imagine. Or one pump on each rocket that are the same. Inverting one, causes the torque to go in the other direction. Probably the latter since it would require a lower parts count. Though it would limit transfers to pumps and tankage to a matched size.
(Score: 1) by MIRV888 on Thursday October 15 2020, @07:46PM (2 children)
Be serious. Joke program.
1 new aircraft carrier is past 13 billion.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 15 2020, @08:37PM
Some of this is: 9 women can't have a baby in one month, no matter what you pay them.
But, yes, if this were a serious endeavor it could certainly use more funding and move faster than it is. I think it's mostly paced to be sure "we're ahead" of whatever else may be happening around the world, but not much more than that.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 15 2020, @09:40PM
Maybe the senator from Alabama won't let NASA spend any more on this senseless fuel depot in space when the SLS rocket could carry sufficiently sized payloads without need of refueling, for only twenty times the price.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 16 2020, @12:59PM
It works well with reuse as an alternative to staging.
Of course if you only know how to do staging with no reuse, it seems useless.
The interesting issues are.
1) Preventing unscheduled disassembly.
2) Getting fuel to flow into the transfer inlet.
3) Reliquifying in space for indefinite storage.
4) Did I mention not going boom?
Is NASA funding reliquification?
They seem to have the rest on the list.