You mean you do not have all 700 pages memorized by now.

“But it refers to funding towards this in the 2011 budget, who knows what is actually going to get appropriated for 2011 and the budget year will be almost over. But in the 2012 budget it calls on using data from a 2011 funding project that gives some baselines for what to do in 2012 as far as how to proceed.”

Good point given the chaos that is the current budget process, the Phase A Study may not have even begun.
“On of the things that is supposed to be determined in 2012 is whether or not they just send up like a mock EDS, transfer fuel to it, then let is just sit in LEO for six months or fire it up after six months. This would be for prepositioning a depot/eds for your return. Another is to just send up a straight depot, let it hang in LEO six months then try and fuel a EDS from that.”

Here is where the results of the Phase A Study would get interesting as to what can be supported. How big would the “mock EDS” be, how much fuel would be transferred, etc. That will drive the size of the required boosters (Delta-IV Heavy is apparently currently going for about $475 million per launch, Atlas 551 $180 million each – the cost of two launches starts to add up). Also this implies the use of an “operational” automated docking system (several in development, but none in use).

Don’t look down on the 6 month loiter capability too much, even three months for the Constellation Systems EDS (to allow for delays in the crew launch) was a considerable hit with the available insulation. If they could actually pull off a refueling with an acceptable “boil off” after 6 months, it would be quite an accomplishment.

I am still skeptical of this fitting into the available budget, but it will be interesting to see what they eventually actually propose.

The second quote appears to be mine, the first one is definitly not, you appear to be confusing me with someone else. No big deal (it happens) just a clarification

In terms of fuel depots they don’t need to be cryogenic. Cryogenic ones are more advantageous than hypergolics.

In terms of propellants only hydrogen is a problem. Oxygen is a mild cryogenic(in fact liquid nitrogen is colder) Methane about the same as oxygen. In fact on a trip to Mars oxygen would freeze if not warmed.

Cryogens colder than oxygen have been stored in space for years.

The only reason it has not been done is because no one has tried. Manned LEO programs don’t need cryogenic propellants and although unmanned spaceflight could benefit from it no one has wanted to invest in it yet(profits too far in the future for most companies). This is what government R/D is good at.

Propellant depots along with storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants would hugely benefit a BEO program. If Orion had a cryogenic service module, an Atlas V heavy would be able to throw Orion to L1/L2 in one launch! It would be possible to send propellants ahead for the crew via electric propulsion or slower trajectories.Long term storage of cryogenic propellants could enable lighter weight and more powerful landers.

IMHO this technology is as important as docking. Without the ability to rendezvous and dock even the Saturn V would be unable to land men on the moon and there would almost certainly have been no moon landing in 1969.

A perfect description of an HLV.

The DoD had ‘DNA’ with NASA. “had” is the operative word. It is no longer true of today. Also, the current military personnel in the space arena are no where like the ones of the past. The USAF used to have small program offices because the personnel were competent engineers. Current era personnel don’t need engineering degrees and are just filling out checklists.

Look at the current Astronaut roster yourself, it is nearly equally balanced civilian and military.
But then again, you wouldn’t know that astronauts are only a small group and don;t reflect the rest of the agency.

It seems you are the only one that knows anything.

” I am not being sarcastic only skeptical, ”

Go ahead and be skeptical, I will be sarcastic; fuel depots are B.S. wishful thinking. No cryogenic propellants have ever been stored for more than a few hours and never transferred in space. There is a reason for that- it is not practical.

Another way to get tax dollars on a hopeless project that cannot succeed- it makes profit by failure a sure thing.

1. Spacex is not advertising, they are demonstrating. Anyone of some intellect can see the difference.
2. The Falcon 9 is flying. Ares I or Liberty isn’t and won’t.
3. NASA believes Spacex
4. 1. You dont know enough to have an informed opinion on these matters