Tuesday, March 12, 2019

What if You Were the Last Human on Earth?

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Utilizing Renewable Methanol to Power Electric Commuter Aircraft

A Firefly ATR 72 (Credit: Wikipedia/Ken Fielding)

by Marcel F. Williams

Renewable methanol (methyl alcohol) is a hydrocarbon fuel that can be derived from the synthesis of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen. Methyl alcohol can also be synthesized from syngas derived from the pyrolysis of hydrocarbon waste. The production of renewable methanol from both methods can be powered by carbon neutral electricity from both nuclear and renewable energy resources.

CO2 can be extracted directly from the atmosphere or from the flu gases of a power plant using a renewable hydrocarbon fuel. Hydrogen can be produced from the electrolysis of freshwater, seawater, brine, or from desalinated water derived from seawater or brine.

Methanol can be synthesized from the syngas resulting from the pyrolysis of urban and rural biowaste and hydrocarbon waste of non-biological origin such as polymers.

Twenty million tonnes of methanol is produced annually, predominantly from fossil fuels, mostly as an industrial chemical precursor. But methanol has been used as a fuel or as a fuel additive for buses, automobiles, and even marine vessels. And methyl alcohol could also be used to power commuter passenger aircraft.

In 2018, a Department of Energy report from Grigorii Soloveichik suggested that commercial-- propeller air transports-- modified to use fuel cells, batteries, and sustainable fuels could reduce propeller airplane energy usage by 40 to 60%, emissions by 90%, and aircraft noise by 65%.

An ATR 72 propeller commuter aircraft, for example, has a cruise speed of 317 mph (510 km/h) and a range of 949 mi (1528 km) using kerosene derived fuels such as Jet A, A-1/JP8, JetB/JP4, and JP5/JP1.

The Department of Energy report determined that utilizing fuel cells and batteries to power the propellers of an ATR 72 could substantially increase the range of a modified aircraft if it used methanol, biodiesel, ethanol, dimethyl ether, or ammonia. Utilizing renewable methanol could give a modified ATR 72 a range of 1800 miles (2900 kilometers).

Fuel cell efficiency 55%, battery round trip efficiency 90%, energy consumption 4.6 kWh/mile for regional aircraft (Credit: Grigorii Soloveichik, DOE)

Because of mounting expenses and regional and political infighting, the governor of California's, Gavin Newsom, had no choice but to curtail the first component of California's high speed rail line to the San Joaquin Valley area, spanning between the small California cities of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings/Tulare, and Bakersfield.

With 12 to 25% of people in the US having some level of anxiety when it comes to flying, high speed rail could accommodate the regional transportation needs of up to 82 million Americans. And if the electric grid supplying the power is utilizing nuclear or renewable resources, high speed rail could accommodate regional transportation needs without adding excess greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

However, the utilization of carbon neutral renewable methanol in electric commuter aircraft could accommodate the regional transportation needs for the other 246 million residents of the United States. In California, commuter aircraft using renewable methanol could operate out of smaller airports throughout California, transporting commuters, for instance from Oakland Airport to Hollywood Burbank (Bob Hope) Airport in less than 90 minutes and to Lake Tahoe Airport in less than a half hour.

Notional Methanol Fuel Cell/Battery ATR 72 Regional Destinations from Oakland, CA Airport (510 km/hr cruise speed)

Less than 30 minutes:

Lake Tahoe, CA - 237 km

Fresno Yosemite Airport - 244 km

Less than one hour:

Reno, Nevada - 287 km

Mammoth Yosemite Airport - 297 km

Eureka, CA - 369 km

Bakersfield, CA - 397 km

Santa Barbara, CA - 442 km

Less than 90 minutes:

Burbank, CA - 522 km

Long Beach, CA - 567 km

Las Vegas, Nevada - 652 km

San Diego, CA - 716 km

Lockheed Martin airship (Credit: Lockheed Martin)

A new generation of airships using fuel cells, electric batteries, and renewable methanol could also play a role in regional transportation. Lockheed Martin is developing a diesel powered airship with a cruise speed of 69 miles per hour (111 km/h) and a range of 1616 miles (2,600 kilometers). Modifying the Lockheed Martin airship to use fuel cells, batteries, and renewable methanol could make such vessels carbon neutral while greatly expanding their range.

Notional Methanol Airship Destinations from Downtown San Francisco (111 km/hr cruise speed)

Less than 30 minutes

SFO (San Francisco International Airport) - 20 km

Oakland International Airport - 20 km

Vallejo, CA - 36 km

Less than 60 minutes:

San Jose, CA - 68 km

Santa Rosa, CA - 78 km

Santa Cruz, CA - 96 km

Stockton, CA - 101 km

Less than 90 minutes:

Sacramento, CA - 120 km

Modesto, CA - 126 km

Monterey, CA - 137 km

While renewable jet fuels are destined to replace jet fuel from petroleum, and renewable hydrogen will be essential for the coming generation of supersonic and hypersonic jet planes that will dramatically cut intercontinental flight times, renewable methanol could play a dominating role in the new age of airships and commuter airplanes.

Links and References

Electrified future of aviation:batteries or fuel cells?

ATR 72

Fear of Flying

Lockheed Martin LMH-1 (P-791)

The Methanol Economy

Methanol as a Marine Fuel

Mitigating Forest Fires by Harvesting Potentially Hazardous Woodland Biomass for the Production of Renewable Methanol

Is Gavin Newsom Right to Slow Down California’s High-Speed Train?

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Deploying Ocean Nuclear Energy Flotillas into International Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synthetic Fuels, Industrial Chemicals, and Fertilizers

Artist’s rendition of the Russian floating nuclear power plant “Akademik Lomonosov” (Credit: SevMashZevod)

by Marcel F. Williams

Floating Nuclear Reactors

Floating nuclear reactors in the form of nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and nuclear icebreakers have been in existence since 1953. And more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operations has been accumulated since the 1950s. Also, two American and seven former Soviet Union nuclear submarines have sunk into the ocean-- with their nuclear material-- because of accidents or extensive damage. So nuclear reactors are no strangers to the Earth's marine environment since the 1950s. Currently, more than 180 small reactors power more than 140 sea vessels in the Earth's oceans.

In 1968, the US military deployed the first floating nuclear power reactor, the Sturgis (MH-1A). Supplying 10 megawatts of electric power to the Panama Canal Zone, the Sturgis operated without incident for over eight years until it reached the end of its service.

Now, Russia has deployed its first floating nuclear power reactor. Recognizing the advantages of floating nuclear power plants, Russia plans to replace nuclear reactors located on land with the new floating reactors.

China also has plans to develop and deploy 20 floating nuclear power plants of its own, the first destined for the South China seas.

Since water is what keeps nuclear material from melting down in light water nuclear reactors, floating nuclear reactors deployed to the oceans virtually infinite heat sink are viewed as inherently safe. Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, however, suggest that a tsunami could push a coastal floating nuclear reactor on land where the reactors fuel could be damaged and allowed to melt down-- poisoning the local environment with radioactive material. Such a scenario, of course, couldn't possibly occur for floating nuclear reactors that are-- remotely sited-- in ocean territories hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from coastlines.

International Waters

Stationary underwater nuclear reactors would be beneficial to Nations that possess extensive Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in remote territorial waters, could take advantage of stationary underwater nuclear reactors. Such remote regions in the world's oceans could utilize nuclear electricity for the production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels, industrial chemicals, and fertilizers that could be shipped by tankers around the world.

Dark blue areas represent EEZ territories; light blue represents international waters (Credit: Wikipedia)

In international waters, nations that don't possess remote territorial waters could still produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels, industrial chemicals and fertilizers-- on the high seas. But this would require mobile fleets of floating nuclear reactors and synfuel producing barges. Since no nation can legally claim a particular area of-- international waters-- a nuclear synplex flotilla could only occupy an area within international waters-- on a temporary basis.

Under this scenario, floating nuclear synplexes would produce hydrocarbon commodities in a particular area of international waters for three to six months before moving a few hundred kilometers away to another region of international waters. Such fuel producing flotillas would also have the advantage of being able to quickly redeploy to another region of the ocean in order to avoid hurricanes and typhoons. Tug boats would be used to deploy and to redeploy the barges within international waters.

Nuclear flotillas could be accompanied by floating plasma pyrolysis plants and electrolysis plants for converting urban and rural hydrocarbon waste into methanol, gasoline, diesel fuel, dimethyl ether, and jet fuel.

Housing for nuplex and synplex workers could be accommodated aboard cruise ships perhaps modified to use methanol or methanol fuel cells.

The colored areas are regions where cyclones and hurricanes are most frequently created in the world's oceans (Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Using the new generation of passively safe small nuclear reactors such as the NuScale type of units, a floating nuclear barge could consist of twelve 60 megawatt reactors producing 720 megawatts of total electricity. Eight floating nuclear barges could, therefore, produce about 5.7 gigawatts of electricity.

Tug boats could transport garbage barges from a coastal town or city to a floating garbage processing barge equipped with cranes that would separate metals from biowaste and plastics. Afterwards the waste processing barge would use its cranes to deploy biowaste and plastics to the plasma arc pyrolyis plant where the garbage would be converted into syngas (mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Additional hydrogen would be added to the process by adding hydrogen derived from the electrolysis of distilled water. A catalyst would be used to convert the syngas into methanol.

Production of methanol from hydrocarbon waste

To enhance safety, the electric powered synfuel barges could be deployed about five kilometers (3 miles) away from the floating nuclear reactors. At $150 per meter, a five kilometer submarine cable connecting the barge to the floating nuclear power plant should cost less than $800,000.

Methanol could be shipped by tankers to coastal towns and cities to be utilized in natural gas electric power plants cheaply modified to use methanol. Methanol electric power stations would actually produce electricity more efficiently than natural gas. It would also be much safer to ship methanol to coastal towns and cities than liquid natural gas.

Japanese Methanol Tanker (Credit: SHIN KURUSHIMA DOCKYARD CO)

The imported methanol could also be converted into dimethyl ether (a diesel fuel substitute) or be used to make biodiesel. Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline that can replace or be easily blended with gasoline derived from petroleum.

Even more methanol can be produced if the CO2 from the flu gases of methanol electric power plants is captured and transported by tanker back to the floating nuclear synplex.

Ammonia and urea could also be produced by remote floating nuclear synplexes, allowing fertilizer to be supplied by tankers to the coastlines of islands and countries around the world.

The abundant oxygen produced from the electrolysis of water by the accompanying synplexes could be utilized for the manufacturing and processing of steel from iron ore.

Coast Guard Cutter (Credit: Wikipedia)

Protection from Pirates and Terrorist

Floating nuclear power plants and synplexes would still have to be accompanied by at least some naval defense presence in order to protect against being taken over or damaged by pirates or potential terrorist on the high seas. The added expense of naval security would probably favor large Ocean Nuclear flotillas capable of generating at least 3000 megawatts of electricity for the accompanying synplex flotillas. The largest land based nuclear power facilities have electric capacities of nearly 8000 megawatts. The largest land based nuclear power facility in the US (Palo Verde) is capable of generating 3300 megawatts of electricity.

If Coast Guard protection of a nuclear flotilla in international waters cost $100 to $200 million a year, it could cost $10 to $20 billion a year to protect 570 gigawatts of electric power and associated synfuel, fertilizer, and industrial chemical production in international waters. However, if such flotillas were congregated in just a few remote US EEZ areas, the cost of Coast Guard protection could be substantially reduced. And it should be noted that the US military currently spends about--$81 billion a year-- protecting greenhouse gas polluting global oil supplies on the world's oceans. So protecting Ocean Nuclear synfuel production could be a lot cheaper than protecting oil supplies.

Utilization within and beyond the EEZ by the US and other Nations

Coastal nations that lack remote EEZ areas such as Singapore, South Korea, Israel, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Eritrea, etc. could utilize floating nuclear synplexes in remote international waters to export their garbage and sewage for the production of synfuels, fertilizers, and industrial chemicals through floating nuclear synplexes without the political and environmental complications of having nearby nuclear facilities.

The United States could also use floating nuclear synplexes within its remote EEZ areas without the need of frequent redeployment until they've developed underwater nuclear facilities for their remote EEZ areas. The US Navy would could especially benefit from the production of jet fuel from floating nuclear synplexes in the Wake Island EEZ. This could allow US nuclear aircraft carriers attempting to counter the growing power of China and Russia in the Pacific to be supplied with jet fuel at the Wake Island EEZ-- in a region near the areas of global tension.

Links and References

Nuclear Powered Ships

Catalytic conversion of synthesis gas to methanol and other oxygenated products

MH-1A

Both reactors on Rosatom’s floating nuclear plant now operational

US spends $81 billion a year to protect global oil supplies, report estimates

NuScale Power

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals

Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

The Case for Remotely Sited Underwater Nuclear Reactors

Methanol as a Marine Fuel

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Timelapse of Every Major Military Battle in World History

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Watch China Land their Robotic Lander on the Far Side of the Moon!

Friday, January 11, 2019

Elephant Artist

More than 2000 years ago, the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, referred to the elephant as "the beast which passeth all others in wit and mind."

Monday, December 24, 2018

Utilizing the Centaur V and ACES 68 for Deep Space SLS Missions

by Marcel F. Williams

Artist rendition of ULA's future upper stage precursor to the IVF modified ACES 68, accommodating 68 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant (Credit: United Launch Alliance)

NASA currently envisions three launches for the SLS (Space Launch System) using a Block I configuration and consisting of an ICPS (Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) for its upper stage. The basic Block I vehicle will be capable of deploying at least 70 tonnes to LEO. However, by utilizing the ICPS as an upper stage that can accommodate 27 tonnes of propellant, the Block I configuration with an ICPS upper stage will be able to deploy at least 95 tonnes of payload to low Earth orbit.

A Block IB configuration with an EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) is expected to be introduced by 2024. The EUS will be able to accommodate 128 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant. And this will enable the Space Launch System to deploy up to 105 tonnes of payload to LEO. NASA currently plans to use the Block IB configuration to assemble the future Lunar Gateway at NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit). The Lunar Gateway will serve as a bridge for Lunar and Martian operations, substantially reducing the delta v requirement to reach the orbits of the Moon and Mars.

NASA's Current Launch Sequence for the SLS

2020:

The SLS Block I launch vehicle will deploy an unmanned Orion spacecraft to a Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) before returning the capsule to the Earth. DRO is interesting because of its lack of station keeping requirement. Such a distant equatorial orbit of the Moon might make DRO a prime location for massive rotating artificial gravity habitats perhaps sometime in the second half of the 21st century. It might also be a good location for small asteroids imported into cis-lunar space for potential exploitation.

2022:

The second SLS Bloch I launch is scheduled to send a crewed Orion spacecraft around the Moon as an inaugural human occupied beyond LEO spaceflight for the SLS system.

2023:

The third scheduled SLS Block I launch will be used to deploy the Europa Clipper to Jupiter orbit in order to study the surface of its icy moon, Europa.

2024:

The first launch of the SLS Block IB is scheduled for 2024. It will consist of an Orion crew of four plus a ten tonne component of the Lunar Gateway which will be assembled at NRHO . This location will eventually give crewed vehicles weekly access to the lunar surface with as little as 12 hours of travel time to and from the surface of the Moon.

2026:

Four subsequent SLS Block IB flights will be required to completely assemble the Lunar Gateway by 2026.

SLS Block I Cargo with ICPS upper stage capable of deploying 95 tonnes to LEO (Credit: NASA)

SLS Block I without upper stage, capable of deploying 70 tonnes to LEO (Credit: NASA)

The Flaws in NASA's SLS Plans

One. Only one or two SLS launches are required to deploy the Lunar Gateway to NRHO-- not five SLS launches. Of course, the amount of mass that can be deployed to NRHO by the SLS is substantially reduced under the NASA scenario because of the joint launch of the Orion spacecraft and Service Module. This would be an unnecessary joy ride for NASA astronauts that would greatly inflate the cost of deploying the Gateway while also significantly delaying its full implementation.

Why spend more than two to five times as much as you have to deploy the Lunar Gateway when dollars for NASA's human spaceflight related programs are so hard to come by? Plus NASA needs more funding to help private companies develop lunar crew landing vehicles, space propellant depots, extraterrestrial habitats, and interplanetary crew transport spacecraft.

Two. Under NASA's current scenario, the Lunar Gateway wouldn't even start to be assembled until 2024 with a completion date around 2026. Again, a totally unnecessary delay in deployment.

An SLS Block I with an ICPS upper stage could probably deploy a complete SLS derived Deep Space Habitat to NRHO as early as 2022 that weighs about 20 tonnes-- without consumables. Food and water could subsequently be launched to the Gateway by commercial launch vehicles.

An SLS Block IB, would be able to deploy SLS derived Deep Space Habitat concepts weighing 22 tonnes for 353 cubic meters of habitable pressurized volume and 28 tonnes for 519 cubic meters of habitable pressurized volume with a single launch in 2024. That would still be two years earlier than NASA's current Lunar Gateway completion plans.

However, a large private commercial upper stage is currently being developed by the ULA (United Launch Alliance) that will be used to deploy payloads for the Air Force (Space Force?). And the ULA's Centaur V could be certified for military payloads in 2021 and ready for utilization in 2022.

If the SLS was used to deploy a large commercial upper stage (Centaur V) to LEO, NASA could deploy a 28 tonne SLS derived Deep Space Habitat to NRHO with just two launches. Assuming a maximum dry weight of no more than seven tonnes for the Centaur V, an SLS Block one launch could deploy the Centaur V to orbit with at least 63 tonnes of propellant. An SLS Block I with an ICPS upper stage could deploy the Centaur V with 68 tonnes of propellant to LEO plus 20 tonnes of additional payload for, perhaps, another ICPS with at least 16 tonnes of additional propellant.

After docking with an SLS payload deployed to LEO by a previous SLS launch, the Centaur V should be easily capable of transporting more than 30 tonnes of payload to NRHO.

However, the preceding SLS Block I launch would be able to deploy up to 70 tonnes of payload to LEO. So you could actually deploy two 28 tonne habitats to LEO (just 56 tonnes) with one destined for NRHO after the next SLS upper stage launch-- while the other 28 tonne habitat remains at LEO as a potential replacement for the ISS.

Replacing the ISS with a new space station would possibly save NASA up to $4 billion a year!

An SLS derived LEO habitat wouldn't be a space laboratory, it would simply be a habitat used for NASA and Space Force astronaut training and for the training of astronauts from foreign space agencies. It could also be a used as a destination for wealthy space tourist and space entrepreneurs. Small commercial launched space laboratories could be co-orbited near the LEO habitat while lab specialist use the SLS derived habitat as a hotel, visiting their floating laboratory only when necessary to add or retrieve materials.

Alternatively, NASA could deploy three 22 tonne SLS derived habitats to LEO with one destined for NRHO with the other two remaining at LEO. One could be used exclusively for NASA and the Space Force with the other being auctioned off to a private space company for space tourism or to accommodate the needs of foreign space agencies.

While the above scenario might delay the first crewed flight of the SLS until 2023 (just one year), it would actually give astronauts a place to go on their first SLS flight in 2023. Of course, NASA could still have a test flight of a crewed Orion in 2021 instead of 2022. NASA astronauts could use commercial crew vehicles to travel to LEO to inspect the Gateway habitat before its deployed to NRHO.

Three. There's no logical reason to waste an SLS launch for a flyby mission of Europa. The Europa Clipper can probably be deployed by commercial launch vehicles. However, an orbital mission to Europa is questionable since the moon Callisto would be much easier to access. Callisto is the only place in Jupiter space where human outpost could be set up for potential colonization. A human outpost on the surface of Callisto would make it substantially easier to explore Europa, Ganymede, and Io (all within Jupiter's deadly radiation belt) with robots remotely controlled from the surface of Callisto. A better near term use for a non human spaceflight related launch of the SLS would be the deployment of space telescopes with mirror diameters even larger than the James Webb.

16.5 meter long 8.4 meter in diameter SLS derived orbital habitat (Credit: NASA)

13.5 meter long 8.4 meter in diameter SLS derived orbital habitat (Credit: NASA)

Propellant Depots and the Future of the Orion

The utilization of reusable vehicles for the human exploration, pioneering, and exploitation of the lunar surface is one of the primary reasons for having a Lunar Gateway at NRHO. Reusable spacecraft will, of course, require propellant depots.

Once the Lunar Gateway is deployed, co-orbiting propellant depots can also be deployed to NRHO by private commercial launch companies. NASA breakthroughs in zero boil off (ZBO) liquid hydrogen storage should make it possible for commercial launch companies to deploy propellant tank derived LH2 (liquid hydrogen) and liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tanks to NRHO that don't leak any hydrogen or oxygen. More sophisticated technologies could allow the solar power production and liquefaction of hydrogen and oxygen from water in space which could substantially reduce launch complexity and cost for commercial launch companies.

The SLS propellant tank technology derived EUS might have questionable utility if NASA is already using the Centaur V and, subsequently, the ACES-68 to deploy heavy payloads to deep space locations.

Notional ACES 68 with BE3 Engine (Credit: ULA)

With its Integrated Vehicle Fuel (IVF) technology, the ULA's ACES-68 successor to the Centaur V could be in operation as early as 2023 but is currently planned to go into operation within the 2024 to 2025 time frame. It now seems likely that the ULA will allow Lockheed Martin, one of its parent companies, to be first to develop IVF technology for its future reusable crewed lunar landing vehicles. In tandem (on either side of an orbiting payload) two such ACES vehicles could transport payloads exceeding 70 tonnes from LEO to NRHO or to Low Lunar Orbit. A single ACES 68 could deploy an equal amount of payload to Mars orbit from NRHO; so massive amounts of water or propellant deployed to NRHO could easily be later deployed to Mars orbit from NRHO.

If propellant depots are deployed at LEO and NRHO, the ACES-68 could replace the ICPS and the Service Module for the Orion space capsule. This would make the Orion a completely reusable vehicle for transporting astronauts between LEO and NRHO. So no longer would the Orion spacecraft have to be deployed by the SLS for deep space missions. The ULA's Vulcan spacecraft could deploy the reusable Orion/ACES to LEO, fueling the ACES 68 booster at a LEO propellant depot before heading for NRHO or Low Lunar Orbit.

So, in theory, astronauts could board a commercial launch vehicle (Falcon 9/Dragon, Atlas V/Centaur/CST-100, etc.) that transports them to LEO. The could then dock with an already propellant depot fueled Orion/ACES vehicle for transport to the Lunar Gateway or to Low Lunara Orbit. Again, no SLS launch would be required which means that the heavy lift vehicle could be more properly used to transport heavy payloads to LEO.

Notional Orion/ACES reusable shuttle with crew hab approaches SLS derived Lunar Gateway at NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit). (After NASA and ULA)

The Future of the EUS

If NASA eventually uses commercial upper stages such as the Centaur V and the ACES 68 to transport large and heavy payloads initially transported to LEO by the SLS then the space agency could delay the deployment of the EUS and focus on developing a far more enhanced orbital transfer vehicle. An SLS derived EUS equipped with IVF and cryocooler technologies could make such a vehicle reusable. Such a vehicle could simply use the SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as a liquid hydrogen tank while also deriving a smaller oxygen tank from the same technology.

Such a reusable vehicle could accommodate more than 345 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant. And it could be used to transport large habitats and their crews to the orbits of Mars, Venus, and to the NEO asteroids from NRHO. The performance of such a reusable interplanetary crew transport could also be greatly enhanced by coupling it with a twin transport or just a reusable ACES booster with 68 tonnes of propellant. Propellant depots in Mars orbit would be required for the the return journey to Earth. But, again, the water or propellant could be routinely transported to Mars orbit from water or propellant transported from the lunar surface to NRHO. Eventually, however, propellant depots in Mars orbit could be routinely supplied with water or propellant extracted from the regolith of the martian moons, Deimos and Phobos. And it might even be economical to transport liquid hydrogen from the surface of Mars from reusable spacecraft to orbiting depots to be used with liquid oxygen extracted from the martian moons for propellant.

An Alternate SLS Launch Scenario

2020:

SLS 1: Unmanned SLS Block I launch of Orion/SM/ICPS to DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit)

2021:

SLS 2: Crewed SLS Block I launch of Orion/SM/ICPS to TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) around the Moon

(Beginning of deployment of small mobile robots to the lunar surface by commercial launch companies)

2022:

SLS 3: Unmanned SLS Block I launch of two 28 tonne SLS derived microgravity habitats to LEO.

(Two Commercial Crew launches to LEO to inspect the twin microgravity habitats.)

SLS 4: SLS Block I launches Centaur V to LEO. Centaur five docks with Lunar Gateway at LEO and transports the fully complete deep space habitat to NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit)

2023:

SLS 5: Crewed SLS Block I launch of Orion/SM/ICPS to Lunar Gateway at NRHO.

SLS 6: SLS Block I with ICPS upper stage launches a Centaur V with an 8 meter class space telescope to ESL2 (Earth-Sun Lagrange Point 2). The new space telescope will have an 8 meter plus monolithic primary mirror housed within a 12 meter in diameter payload fairing. And it will join the with join the 6.5 meter in diameter James Webb telescope at ESL2. The diameter for the mirror for the Hubble Telescope was 2.4 meters. The development of such a enormous fairing size for the SLS will greatly enhance the launch vehicles unique ability to accommodate exceptionally large payloads. NASA needs to stop entertaining smaller payload shrouds for the SLS that could nullify its advantage over other launch systems.

(Commercial launch companies begin the continuous deployment of tanks of LOX and LH2 to depot clusters at LEO and NRHO)

{NASA begins using new RS-28 engines for the SLS core vehicle. Hopefully, some meager funding to develop an SLS-B (the SLS without Solid Rocket Boosters) with a commercial Centaur V or ACES upper stage and a commercial CST-100, Dream Chaser, Dragon, or maybe even an Orion as the crew capsule. This would allow more frequent use of the SLS core stage and its RS-25 engines which should help to substantially reduce the overall cost of SLS launches.}

2024:

SLS 7: SLS Block I launches two reusable Lockheed Martin Lunar Crew Landing Vehicle (LCLV) equipped with advanced IVF and cryocooler technology. One LCLV will be launched with enough fuel to self deploy itself to the Lunar Gateway at NRHO. The LCLV already fueled with LH2, will utilize a LEO orbiting LOX depot in order to fuel itself for self deployment to NRHO.

Both Lunar Crew Landing Vehicles will be fueled and tested (unmanned) at NRHO with each traveling to opposite lunar poles to deploy mobile robots to the surface via their lift elevators. Some of the mobile robots will collect regolith samples for return to the Lunar Gateway and eventually to Earth. A few weeks later, one LCLV will be deployed to the surface of the far side of the Moon to collect regolith more lunar regolith samples while proving the vehicle's reusability.

{First NASA /ULA funded unmanned test of a reusable Orion/ACES to NRHO followed by the first crewed Orion/ACES to the Lunar Gateway at NRHO. The reusable vehicle will be launched into orbit by the ULA Vulcan rocket. The success of reusable Orion/ACES spacecraft and reusable Lockheed Martin Lunar Landing Vehicle (used for crew transport between LEO and NRHO) should end the necessity of using the SLS to deploy astronauts to NRHO Gateway}

SLS 8: Last crewed SLS Block I launch of Orion/SM/ICPS to Lunar Gateway at NRHO.

After the six member crew arrives at NRHO, four astronauts will climb aboard one of the Lunar Crew Landing Vehicles to travel to one of the lunar poles (The first Americans to land on the lunar surface since 1972). If the crew on the lunar surface should have some serious difficulties attempting to return to the Lunar Gateway, the remain astronauts at NRHO will use the second LCLV to rescue the astronauts from the lunar surface, returning them safely to the Lunar Gateway.

So under this SLS launch scenario (before the end of 2024), NASA would have a new simpler and cheaper (and possibly money making) space station at LEO, a new Lunar Gateway at NRHO, plus American astronauts and hopefully, guest astronauts from foreign space agencies, routinely traveling to and from the lunar surface from the Lunar Gateway on private commercial landing vehicles.

Links and References

Space Launch System Lift Capabilities