15 thoughts on “Hiding The Propellant Depots”

  1. This is the same ugliness that heavily biased the choice of platform for Constellation. Lean on the scale hard, hide or disparage the alternatives, and your desired outcome magically becomes the choice made.

  2. “[Rohrabacher] …sent a letter to big rocket proponent and ex-NASA administrator Michael Griffin asking for Griffin’s support in getting the agency to hand over the documentation.”

    Uh… What?

  3. I think people mischaracterize NASA’s position with respect to propellant storage (depots). NASA is currently funding 4 independent contractor led studies to see how best to implement propellant storage and transfer with an eye toward a demonstration mission in the next 4 years. There are many within NASA that think propellant depots are a good idea with or without SLS.

    1. Trouble is, SLS is a disastrously bad idea with and without depots – even if it flies eventually. Especially if it flies eventually.

  4. “SLS is a disastrously bad idea…” True but to say NASA is hiding propellant depots or not actively seeking their benefits isn’t true.

    1. The problem is that SLS will be such a money sink that there won’t be much funding for anything else. Propellant depots, done properly, eliminates the need for SLS in the first place. That’s why someone doesn’t want much mention of depots.

  5. Rand,

    You have it right. If anyone cared about space which, unfortunately, the vast majority do not.

  6. Scanning Buzzfeed I see that the page informing our citizenry that Shia LaBeouf suffered a beat down in a fist fight outside some bar got nearly 200,000 views. Then again there is a link to some Megan Fox pics, and I for one would spend large amounts of cash to engage my docking mechanism with her portal. If only we could find a way to link reasonable space policy with porn we might have a way to reach the masses. Until then I will expect to see Senator Shelby & Hatch donning white Togas at the first SLS launch and calling to the masses saying “are you not entertained!”

  7. Again, there is already a depot on orbit, called Zarya/FGB. Yes, its somewhat hidden in the core of this big orbiting national laboratory or whatever ..

    1. Yes, and spacecraft can serve as their own depot too. While depots aren’t necessary to avoid an HLV, they are sufficient. And that’s something NASA’s been hiding.

  8. If anyone cared about space

    Or if the people that do care understood the importance of having a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market to fund development of cheap lift. I think most space enthusiasts have a vague idea that you need a small rocket to go to LEO and a big one to go to the moon. Like the minimum wage it sounds good on superficial inspection even though it is a terrible idea.

    1. MPM,

      [[[Or if the people that do care understood the importance of having a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market to fund development of cheap lift.]]]

      The problem is most space advocates sorted themselves out into in different camps decades ago, and are so buried in the paradigm of their camp they discount any data or studies that challenge that paradigm.

  9. The problem, again, is government involvement. If a HLV made sense economically you don’t need the government paying for it (as if the government paid for anything.) If it doesn’t, why should the government produce it.

    2012 needs to be a big tea party gain. Otherwise the Stupid Launch System will continue to suck funds away from anything that might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

Comments are closed.