Oh, no, we can't have a propellant "depot" -- Boeing and Congress will
never stand for that. It will just be a place where we store propellant
on orbit. We could call it a propellant babbelflarg.
On 2019-08-28 08:56, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Please, let us be technically precise. The preferred medium is on a
bar napkin :-D
Excellent thought RE separating out the propellant-accumulation and
lunar-mission tasks. I was thinking that it'd be really tough on one
crew, flying ~10 propellant transfer sequences in LEO then immediately
setting out on a Moon-and-back run. Your approach solves that neatly.
Minor irreverent thought: The "Prime Tanker" might well end up with
some specialized characteristics - better insulation to reduce
boiloff, say. Other minor optimizations would no doubt also occur at
the time. Why, you might then call it a Depot Tanker... (gd&r)
Seriously. As soon as such a prime tanker starts becoming
specialized, it's an evolutionary step toward a depot. Once it's
specialized enough that just keeping it in orbit over multiple
outward-mission support cycles starts to make sense, it will be for
all intents and purposes a depot.
Henry
On 8/28/2019 6:37 AM, James Fackert wrote:
Henry is the king of analysis on a table napkin!
So about 10 tanker flights to refuel a Starship to head for the
moon. Still no need for a permanent fuel depot.
First tanker parks in refueling position optimal for the mission, 9
(?) more tanker flights meet it, dump their payloads and go back for
more.
Mission Starship meets it, tanks up and heads out, and the prime
tanker heads home for the next mission.
As has been pointed out, there is no optimal position for a depot
and no need to develop a specialized depot until the traffic on the
lunar rail line warrants it.
jim fackert
