Space Exploration Initiative Succeeds?

[Archibald]

Thank's Micheal Van, Chapter 7 explains the whole mess very cleary and in a very detailed manner. And thank's to Archibald in extension for finding the link.

The SEI was one hell of a train wreck. But even with better planning, you still face the burden of the shuttle infrastructure and investments that can't be erased and rebuild from the ground up.
1986 or 1989 was too early to get ride of the space shuttle that had flown in 1981.
That's why I think that, past January 1972 and Nixon approval of the shuttle (that could never be cancelled before the 2000's) the US manned space program is in shambles. The only way to derail the OTL shuttle train wreck in a slightly more interesting ATL is to try and keep Skylab A... or Skylab B in orbit.

 

[Michel Van]

The SEI was one hell of a train wreck. But even with better planning, you still face the burden of the shuttle infrastructure and investments that can't be erased and rebuild from the ground up.
1986 or 1989 was too early to get ride of the space shuttle that had flown in 1981.
That's why I think that, past January 1972 and Nixon approval of the shuttle (that could never be cancelled before the 2000's) the US manned space program is in shambles. The only way to derail the OTL shuttle train wreck in a slightly more interesting ATL is to try and keep Skylab A... or Skylab B in orbit.

and in same time run also: SDI, the National Aero-Space Plane aka X-30 and Advanced Launch System followed National Launch System Program.

Skylab B would have be good alternative, but it's High cost on refurbishing last Saturn V/Skylab B and modified the Skylab to Shuttle hardware, was something the Reagan administration not wanted to pay.
NASA not wanted to use two museum piece and president Reagan wanted some thing Bigger and Bush something much much bigger

 

[SpaceGeek]

Another way to save NASA after 1972 is to have the fourth N-1 launch in November 1972 to succeed. This would improve Soviet confidence enough to fly the N1F in 1974. With thoughs successful it may have begun the L3M lunar outpost or the OS-1 permanent spacestation (ISS equivelant in 2 launches). Then NASA would have to respond. T

If Skylab-5 had launched, the Skylab A may have stayed in orbit long enough for STS-2 to reboost it and for Shuttle flights to visit it.

Beyond that, it get's harder. Using the Shuttle with minimal modifications (as in the Shuttle-C or Z) would be one way of developing an HLV.

If the Chinese Space Program hadn't been shut down by Mao the first Taikanouts could have flown in 1973. This could change things significantly in terms of the US and USSR's response.

USSR decides on an Energia launched lunar base instead of Buran?

These PODs have little to do with the SEI program however so I would disregard them.

 

[Michel Van]

Another way to save NASA after 1972 is to have the fourth N-1 launch in November 1972 to succeed. This would improve Soviet confidence enough to fly the N1F in 1974. With thoughs successful it may have begun the L3M lunar outpost or the OS-1 permanent spacestation (ISS equivelant in 2 launches). Then NASA would have to respond. T

If Skylab-5 had launched, the Skylab A may have stayed in orbit long enough for STS-2 to reboost it and for Shuttle flights to visit it.

Beyond that, it get's harder. Using the Shuttle with minimal modifications (as in the Shuttle-C or Z) would be one way of developing an HLV.

If the Chinese Space Program hadn't been shut down by Mao the first Taikanouts could have flown in 1973. This could change things significantly in terms of the US and USSR's response.

USSR decides on an Energia launched lunar base instead of Buran?

These PODs have little to do with the SEI program however so I would disregard them.

in that case there maybe still the Saturn V !
the production hardware had survived to 1974, with N1 fly in november 1972 into orbit, they could have reactivated it.
and build some Saturn V to use until 1978 "until the Shuttle war ready"
they could launch big space station or use rest of Apollo hardware for some moon flight until 1978

what to hell has this to do with SEI ?
simple they study (for the X-time) the reactivation of Saturn V this time for SEI
in the end it was the F-1 engine consider the only hardware needed from that, the rest was "obsolete"
oood SLS stet study again the F-1, even tested old parts of it

 

[Archibald]

Another way to save NASA after 1972 is to have the fourth N-1 launch in November 1972 to succeed. This would improve Soviet confidence enough to fly the N1F in 1974. With thoughs successful it may have begun the L3M lunar outpost or the OS-1 permanent spacestation (ISS equivelant in 2 launches). Then NASA would have to respond.

Good idea. Even more important than the N-1 to suceed or fail is to try and butterfly away Glushko takeover of 1974 that led to NPO Energia.

In 1969 the Americans had four options with the Space Task Group
- Mars
- more Moon
- space station
- space shuttle

The soviets didn't knew what option Nixon would pick, so they forged mostly similar options they would pick according to the american decision - symmetrical answer typical of the Cold War.

- Mars = Aelita nuclear-electric ship
- more Moon: L3M sorties and DLB lunar base
- space station: small, Skylab = Salyut, or huge, space base = the MKBS

And... there was no soviet shuttle. Not before 1976 ! In April 1972, onyl four months after Nixon started the american shuttle, a Soviet meeting on the subject led to... nothing.
The Aviation and Rocket ministries hated each others since 1960 when Mister K had shut down bombers in favour of ICBMs. The military hated reusable space planes, they hated Spiral.
Korolev heir Vasily Mishin was interested only in MKBS or L3M / DLB.

So nothing moved for years... and Glushko saw an opportunity there. He told Breznhev that a major reorganization was necessary, and that HE could build the damn shuttle... together with the Energia rocket he really wanted to go to the Moon and kill the N-1.
So Buran was, even for a Glushko, only a pretext to a) grab ower within the Soviet rocket industry and b) to get that Energia HLV.

Glushko however was trapped when his Energia lunar base was eaten alive by... Buran itself.

 

[Michel Van]

odd you mention this, Archibald

Because in 1969 Nixon was confronted with "Integrated Manned Space Flight Program"
a proposal that eclipse Space Exploration Initiative
for 1980s:
Manned Space Base with 48 astronauts, GEO Space station with 12-24 Astronauts
Nuclear Tugs for Earth moon and Earth Mars mission
a Lunar Base with 24-48 men and Lunar orbit station with 12-24 men
Manned Mission to Mars with 6-12 men
and over 40 launches of Saturn V and hundreds Shuttle flights

the prise tag was $500 Billion in 1969 (today one Trillion us Dollars!)

in Soviet union things run not easy:
Mishin start to drink heavy as he encounter problems in N1 and Soyuz and Zond program
arrogant Chelomei had fallen deep after Mister K was ouster by Brezhnev & co.
Valentin Glushko refused engine that use Oxygen/hydrogen, strenuous insist on NTO/UMHD engines
The Aviation and Rocket ministries hate Space planes and ICBM
between 1969 to 1973 nothing happened in USSR space flight programs
until Nixon drop for them the Bombshell: Space Shuttle
the KGB completely misunderstanding the situation of US space program, came to a paranoiac conclusion:
the USAF /NASA space shuttle is a Space Bomber against USSR !

with N1 exploding by overzealous safety officer at Baikonur Cosmodrome.
Things start turned wrong, Mishin absently, lost the moon program and N1 program and his job
arrogant Chelomei had fall even deeper after a Proton flight went horribly wrong, almost killing some high rang officials.
after that Valentin Glushko switched "by accident" to Oxygen/kerosine engines and get a new Program
He proposed the Vulcan Heavy Lift rocket
but The Aviation and Rocket ministries in wake of Shuttle Panic, demanded:
A reusable manned spacecraft with "analogous tactical-technical characteristics" of US Space Shuttle, in simple words "Build it like the Shuttle!"
Vulcan bye bye, Here come Energia /Buran.

I try the Energia /Buran. in my ill-fated "Ronald Reagan Space Exploration Initiative" TL
(who for the moment under Heavy overwork, focusing from 1969 events to more change world in 1980s, and better explain and written)

 

[SpaceGeek]

Good idea. Even more important than the N-1 to suceed or fail is to try and butterfly away Glushko takeover of 1974 that led to NPO Energia.

In 1969 the Americans had four options with the Space Task Group
- Mars
- more Moon
- space station
- space shuttle

The soviets didn't knew what option Nixon would pick, so they forged mostly similar options they would pick according to the american decision - symmetrical answer typical of the Cold War.

- Mars = Aelita nuclear-electric ship
- more Moon: L3M sorties and DLB lunar base
- space station: small, Skylab = Salyut, or huge, space base = the MKBS

And... there was no soviet shuttle. Not before 1976 ! In April 1972, onyl four months after Nixon started the american shuttle, a Soviet meeting on the subject led to... nothing.
The Aviation and Rocket ministries hated each others since 1960 when Mister K had shut down bombers in favour of ICBMs. The military hated reusable space planes, they hated Spiral.
Korolev heir Vasily Mishin was interested only in MKBS or L3M / DLB.

So nothing moved for years... and Glushko saw an opportunity there. He told Breznhev that a major reorganization was necessary, and that HE could build the damn shuttle... together with the Energia rocket he really wanted to go to the Moon and kill the N-1.
So Buran was, even for a Glushko, only a pretext to a) grab ower within the Soviet rocket industry and b) to get that Energia HLV.

Glushko however was trapped when his Energia lunar base was eaten alive by... Buran itself.

You are framing it as though the Shuttle, More Moon, Shuttle or Station were all costing equal amounts. This is simply not the case,

Shuttle cost about the same as a stagnant Skylab/Lunar program (new skylab every 1.5 years, 4 crew rotations/year, 2 Lunar mission/year)
Shuttle costs more than just continueing Skylab or Apollo
Mars/Venus Flybys were also possible without straining the budget (even if you add lunar missions or Skylab missions).

Shuttle costs less than even just doing Mars Expeditions (remember nobody had come up with anything close to Mars Direct). If the Shuttle could simply be replaced with Mars landing Expeditions, well then I've got my next TL right there. But the estimated cost for going to mars was $30 billion in 1968 dollars. That's 50% more than the Apollo program, and NASA was in no mood for a another Apollo. Even spreading it over 15 years that's still too much.

 

[Archibald]

Didn't said that. Just wanted to highlight that the US / USSR space options were symmetrical.

 

[SpaceGeek]

Ok, nevermind. That's quite correct, the Russians weren't about to lose the Space Race twice and had answers to whatever the US did (except for the Shuttle, the one the US decided on OTL).

I always wanted a TL were the Space Shuttle carries a passenger module in the payload bay that allows it to take 100 passengers in a single flight. Unfortunatly the cost would still be $2-3 million/passenger. Worse than Virgin Galactic's $250,000 but better than the Soyuz's $20 million.

Unfortunatly the safety would be awful (1 in 100 at best when it atleast needs to be 1 in 1,000). Unless you somehow added an escape system to it during launch (payload bay doors open, retro-rockets fire, the module flies away and parachutes?). Hard, but awsome! Hundreds of people flying to orbit per year!

Pan Am Space Shuttle? + External Tank Space Station V?
1985 a Space Odyssey!

You'd be hard pressed to find a Non-ASB POD for that though.

 

[Archibald]

Hell no. I have a POD. Remember that talk about suborbital refueling we had in another thread ?
Do you know the Aerospaceplane study of 1963 ?
They explored all kind of concepts, including hypersonic refueling at mach 6. Don't gget me wrong, that was suicide.
But...
There was a plan to try and test hypersonic refueling through a pair of X-15s. That would have been suicide, but the X-15 not only broke speed records it also flew suborbital trajectories... and out of the atmosphere a 3 mn to 6 mn parabola allows for some limited refueling.

Now imagine a shuttle orbiter. Get ride of the huge SSMEs at the back. Replace them by a single GE-90 and a pair of Black Arrow H2O2 / kerosene engines. Put a load of kerosene and H2O2 into the large payload bay. Add a refueling probe on the nose.
Fly a pair of such vehicles on GE-90 power, up to 48000 ft and mach 0.9. Then light the rocket up to 150 km high and mach 15. Then during a suborbital parabola one vehicle sprout a refueling probe and refuel the other before gliding back to Earth.
Well, the other vehicle can go into orbit with a small payload, an average 10 000 pounds.
I can assure you it works. I have a lot of documents and links if you are interested.
Cheers !

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Hell no. I have a POD. Remember that talk about suborbital refueling we had in another thread ?
Do you know the Aerospaceplane study of 1963 ?
They explored all kind of concepts, including hypersonic refueling at mach 6. Don't gget me wrong, that was suicide.
But...
There was a plan to try and test hypersonic refueling through a pair of X-15s. That would have been suicide, but the X-15 not only broke speed records it also flew suborbital trajectories... and out of the atmosphere a 3 mn to 6 mn parabola allows for some limited refueling.

Now imagine a shuttle orbiter. Get ride of the huge SSMEs at the back. Replace them by a single GE-90 and a pair of Black Arrow H2O2 / kerosene engines. Put a load of kerosene and H2O2 into the large payload bay. Add a refueling probe on the nose.
Fly a pair of such vehicles on GE-90 power, up to 48000 ft and mach 0.9. Then light the rocket up to 150 km high and mach 15. Then during a suborbital parabola one vehicle sprout a refueling probe and refuel the other before gliding back to Earth.
Well, the other vehicle can go into orbit with a small payload, an average 10 000 pounds.
I can assure you it works. I have a lot of documents and links if you are interested.
Cheers !

Yes, links, please.

10k lb is 5tons. That's a small fraction of the orbiter weight, so any weight overruns or performance underruns would kill it. Very like an SSTO. It's hard to conceive of peroxide/air/kerosene in internal fuel getting to orbit when otl it needs a huge external tank with LH2...

 

[SpaceGeek]

The question is, what would the cost per flight be. The Pathfinder spaceplane had a cost per flight of just $500,000 and had a maximum speed of Mach 15 (although let's not forget it was a much smaller vehicle). It carried a payload of 2500 kg (a upperstage could lift 2100 kg to LEO). This means getting 70% of the way to LEO for a cost per kg of just $200. Unfortunatly the pathfinder then relys on a $1.5 million upper stage to get the payload into LEO.

The Pathfinder could act as the ideal second stage vehicle that gets refueled. The total propellant mass of the Pathfinder is 88 tonnes (22 tonne dry mass, 20% mass fraction). If you could transfer just a small fraction of this into the Pathfinder we could get it into LEO.

Further the Pathfinder can return it's 2500 kg from LEO. That means would could have a passenger module with an incredibly low mass (no need for heat sheild, guidance, life, support systems, ect). If the cost per kg is below $1,000 kg to LEO I could expect space tourism and settlement to become a real possibility. I'm really more concerned about the cost per person then the cost per kg to LEO. If our goal is to open the space age to the masses, that's what we must focuss on.

I'm still concerned about the cost per launch however. Don't forget the biggest cost of the Space Shuttle was not the SRBs or ETs it was the fixed $3 billion/year to maintain the Orbiter. In order to get a cost per kg to LEO of $1,000 (payload in the Pathfinder's payload bay not counting the mass of the Pathfinder itself) you would need to fly the shuttle at a cost of $2.5 million/flight.

I always wondered if, rather than going full steam ahead with the Space Shuttle they had focused on the X-15. Slowly building it up to higher and higher Mach numbers. X-15A-3 could have reach Mach 8 without the Valkyrie and perhaps Mach 10 with it. And that was in 1962! It could have made significant progress just in the 1960s and 1970s let alone another four decades, so that it had a cost per seat of just a few hundred thousand dollars to fly into LEO. A similer design would involve an X-15 (ontop of three G-26 Navaho booster stages) flying into LEO, in 1959! Once again imagine what 55 years of added development could do to reduce the cost per person (IIRC the X-15 could take one pilot and a single passenger).
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a3.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15b.htm

 

[Archibald]

Yes, links, please.

10k lb is 5tons. That's a small fraction of the orbiter weight, so any weight overruns or performance underruns would kill it. Very like an SSTO. It's hard to conceive of peroxide/air/kerosene in internal fuel getting to orbit when otl it needs a huge external tank with LH2...

I have an excel spreadsheet made by a member of this board (think it e of pi) but I have first to ask him whether I can post it or not.

The orbiter was only an element of comparison, a workbase.

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/analog.html (scroll down to "a speculative idea" )

http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/1...to-with-exo-atmospheric-suborbital-refueling/

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19541.0

The high-and-fast refueling somewhat makes an SSTO easier. Instead of a 0.95 mass fraction for SSTO kerolox, the mass fraction can drop to 0.85. At first glance it doesn't seem much of an improvement, but the logarithm in the rocket equation changes everything.
I learned a lot of things about the rather extreme tyranny of the rocket equation. It all boils down to the bloody logarithm.

With a 0.95 mass fraction a kerolox SSTO barely makes it to a 200 km orbit... with a 0.85 mass fraction top speed drops from 9 km/s to 6 km/s only ! Yet the space plane is much easier to build. Then suborbital refueling restore the lost orbital performance... and payload.

When compared to Skylon, VentureStar or Orient Express (respectively air liquefaction, all rocket, or scramjet SSTOs) suborbital refueling somewhat re-invent Tsiolkovsky or Korolev multi-stage rocket...

As for the cost - page 167 of that document
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/handle/2042/32159

One way to pare the cost still further is with an imaginative two-ship
mission. One vehicle carries the cargo, the other flies with only its crew.
It turns out that the deadheading spacecraft arrives in space with 20,000
pounds (9,100 kg) of unused fuel. So pump the fuel into the cargo carrier
and fly the companion vehicle back to Earth. The second Black Horse
can then proceed to orbit with a useful load of 12,000 pounds (nearly
5,500 kg), plus its crew. If the launch cost of one vehicle carrying its
standard payload comes to $500 per pound ($1,100 per kg), the cost for
the combined mission drops to less than $85 per pound ($187 per kg)!
And at that price, many missions become possible.

Or put another way, let's say that it turned out after the construction was done that the actual Black Horse dry weight came in not at 15,000 lb, but at 24,000 lb, a 60% mass growth over the estimate. The vehicle would now only be capable of suborbital flight to 23 kft/s. However, if two such vehicles were flown, performed a suborbital propellant transfer at 15.5 kft/s, the enriched vehicle would be able to make orbit with a 1000 lb payload. Since the propellants being transferred are non cryogenic, such a suborbital zero-g propellant transfer could be done using bladders. If the APT in question used LOX for its oxidizer, the transfer would require a weak gravity field, which could be created by both vehicles firing their RCS systems continually during the transfer.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Sure, with a Black Horse. You said 'shuttle orbiter'. No way would the mass fraction work there.

Besides, didnt the Black Horse concept involve taking off, getting to ~10km (30-40k ft), refueling there, and THEN going higher up? So, youd have two refuelings to get to orbit.

Besides. High test peroxide? In an aerial refueling? Ouch. Can we say 'Kursk'? Or HMS Exploder?
Edit: note that the later iteration went with lox.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I always wondered if, rather than going full steam ahead with the Space Shuttle they had focused on the X-15. Slowly building it up to higher and higher Mach numbers. X-15A-3 could have reach Mach 8 without the Valkyrie and perhaps Mach 10 with it. And that was in 1962! It could have made significant progress just in the 1960s and 1970s let alone another four decades, so that it had a cost per seat of just a few hundred thousand dollars to fly into LEO. A similer design would involve an X-15 (ontop of three G-26 Navaho booster stages) flying into LEO, in 1959! Once again imagine what 55 years of added development could do to reduce the cost per person (IIRC the X-15 could take one pilot and a single passenger).
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a3.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15b.htm

1) both X15 variants were paper studies. Vehicles, especially fast ones, almost always do better in their paper specs than in real world peformance.

2) x15b. Hmmm. Take an x15. Add a heatshield. Add big solid rockets. Throw away the plane, and have the pilot eject. How iis this better than a capsule? Note theres no reusability at all. An x15 cant take orbital re-entry without that heatshield. And remember what I said about paper vs metal?

 

[e of pi]

Yeah, Archibald, it was me. Don't have the sheet handy, what with being on the road still, but I can post it tonight. What I recall wasn't encouraging, though--the aerial fueling version was beaten by a two-stage RLV every time, often by a lot. Worse, thinking about it again, I realized I forgot to account for gravity losses of a multi-minute coast during fuel transfer. That really hurts since it could add a few km/s of extra gravity loss. Ouch!

 

[SpaceGeek]

Now let's think about what $187/kg could do.

Robert Zubrin calculated that Mars colonization would become feasible when the cost per kg to LEO reached $100/kg.

If we assume that there is operating between Earth and Mars a cycling spacecraft which has the ability to recycle water and oxygen with 95% efficiency, then each passenger (100 kg with personal effects) will have to bring about 400 kg of supplies to provide himself with food, water and oxygen during a 200 day outbound trip to Mars. Thus 500 kg will need to be transported through a DV of about 4.3 km/s to move the immigrant from LEO to a (2 year period) cycling interplanetary spacecraft. The capsule mass, used to transport the immigrant from LEO to the cycler and from the cycler to the Martian surface could be assumed optimistically to have a mass of 500 kg per passenger. Thus for each passenger a total of 1000 kg needs to be delivered to the cycler orbit, which with an Isp of 380 s for the CH4/O2 propulsion system on the transfer capsules translates into 3200 kg in LEO. At a delivery price of $100/kg to LEO, and assuming that the cost of the cycler itself is amortized over a very large number of missions, this in turn translates into a cost of $320,000 per passenger to Mars.

If we take all his assumptions, but run it with $187/kg instead of $100/kg. That would make the cost per person just under $600,000. That's still well within what many middle-class westerners could afford. There would be thousands of people rocketing to Mars every single year. Lunar colonization could proceed at the same cost. The capsule enters Lunar Orbit where it docks to a reusable lunar lander. The lunar lander carries ISRU propellant from the surface to launch and land before refueling again on the surface. This means no extra fuel is needed to perform the landing. Plus the settlers only need Food, Water and Oxygen for the 3 day transit to the Moon rather than the 200 day Mars voyage cutting costs down to just $360,000.

Using just the capsule a small inflatable module and an EDS stage the capsule could easily take settlers to a suitable NEO. They still would need a significant amount of consumables like the Mars settlers however.

Inside the payload bay a Spaceplane could carry passengers to LEO at a cost of just $90,000 (assuming 500 kg/person for the passenger module). It would then rendezvous with a Space Station for a long duration stay. If they were to just wear space suits in an unpressurized cabin the cost per person to LEO would be only $18,700/ticket. That's less than some luxery intercontinental Airlines!

If a rich individual, the Discovery Channel or the National Geographics Society wanted to perform a science expedition to the Low High or Medium Earth Orbit, the Moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids, or heliocentric space they would be able to do quite easily.

But let's be real, there are limits here. 5.5 tonnes is a thin payload capacity to build a space laboratory or hotel on. Maybe you could do it. The cancelled Inflatable Sundancer module had a mass of eight tonnes and could support a crew of three with 180 m3 of volume. The Genisis II spacecraft has a mass of 1.3 tonnes with 11 m3 of pressurized volume. This is the same volume as the Tiangong 1 Lab as well as the planne MOL laboratory. The "Industrial Space Facility" was planned to have a mass of 11 tonnes and be even more capable laboratory. So perhaps a small laboratory or expanded hotel module could be built within 5.5 tonnes. It's launch would cost just $1 million, although hardware manufacturing would cost more.

This doesn't even scratch the surface.

 

[Archibald]

Worse, thinking about it again, I realized I forgot to account for gravity losses of a multi-minute coast during fuel transfer. That really hurts since it could add a few km/s of extra gravity loss. Ouch!

That's the 580 m/s per second you mention for every minute of fuel transfer. Ok, the devil is in the details.
And the rocket equation is on hell of a SOB.

 

[Archibald]

SpaceGeek, the payload is obviously limited, there's no question about that. The answer to that is mass production and frequent flying - pretty much a space Boeing 737.

 

[SpaceGeek]

Oh I'm in complete agreement with you. I was just saying it would be a little difficult for space station construction. But then I explained how it could work. A entire Bigelow Sundance Habitat sufficient for three people (180 m3) would take one flight and cost $1 million to launch ($300,000/person). $18,700 per person to get to LEO (with a return capsule). Resupply would cost still cost about $300,000/year so close-loop life support would need to be developed. I know plenty of middle class houses than are more expensive than that. You could easily live in LEO if the Earth, Moon, Mars or Asteroids doesn't suit you. For about $900,000 you could live in habitat in a higher orbit around the Earth or in a Cycling Orbit between the Earth and Moon. For roughly the same sum we could put you're space habitat with it's closed loop lifesupport in Orbit around Venus. The possibilities are endless!

Further with it's fast turnaround time/flight rate the problems associates with orbital fuel depots (mainly that smaller EELVs cost alot and the propellant boils away easily) would be droped completly.

With a flight/day, you could imagine these vehicle bringup tanks of LH2 to an orbital depot. The Spaceplane would then open it's payload bay revealing the tank inside, dock, and transfer the 5.5 tonnes of LH2 and return with the empty tank still in the payload bay. After 200 days of filling up the Depot (and 365 flights) you would have 1000 tonnes of propellant. That's enough to support Manned Missions to the outer Solar System (Jupiter and Saturn) as well as the MainBelt Asteroids (assuming the use of NTR).

The total cost would be just $187 million for all the propellant needed to send Manned Missions to the Outer Solar System. That's within what some private organizations could perform. Of coarse this doesn't take into account the hardware cost of the vehicles for such a long mission. Also the actual payload (Habitat/Capsule/Rocket Stage ect) would need to be launched on something atleast as powerful as a Shuttle-C or else assembled by multiple modules brought up by Proton launchers.

Asteroid mining (atleast for the NEO) would be possible and immensly profitable. It would also further cut the cost of bringing matireals like Water, Oxygen, Nitrogren, Volatiles, Hydrogen ect. This would allow fuel costs to drop to an even lower fraction. Resources like Cobalt, Nickel, Platinum and Rare Earth Metals would no longer be in short supply, ever!