Orbital ATK Render below.
It's an outpost in search of a mission, for a capsule in search of a mission, launched by a rocket in search of a mission.
Quote from: jgoldader on 05/20/2016 11:21 amIt's an outpost in search of a mission, for a capsule in search of a mission, launched by a rocket in search of a mission.This doesn't make any sense. Having an outpost in lunar orbit that can be used to test deep space life support and be used as a staging area for lunar surface and hopefully Mars missions is very valuable. It would have as much, if not more, of a "mission" than ISS. Plans are now being proposed to actually use SLS/Orion to good effect. This framework also leverages commercial investment. Can we stop pooh poohing everything that doesn't have to do with another rocket company and acknowledge the possible benefits of the Orbital ATK design?
It's an outpost in search of a mission, for a capsule in search of a mission, launched by a rocket in search of a mission.(As always with me, this is not a criticism of the talented and dedicated engineers, for whom I have great respect.)
And proposed by a company (ATK) which is most proficient at finding govt contracts, not creating something economically viable on its own.
As it sits now this proposal 50 years after Eagle landed so we have have a look at the Moon from afar is just a typical job creation program for Orion/SLS and something to do with my backyard telescope. Want to test deep space hardware, sure... Leave the astros at home, they just add complexity and cost...
I think I'd be more convinced after seeing more detail of the intended purpose and capability of the proposed outpost. Also, could this outpost be built and serviced without Orion/SLS?
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/19/2016 08:52 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/19/2016 08:28 pmIt appears to be a less capable version of the ISS, but in a far more remote (and expensive) location.How does this help us get to Mars, which is NASA's current internal goal?A cis-lunar habitat capable of long duration autonomous flight is basically a Mars transfer vehicle without a propulsion system. Gaining experience building and operating a habitat in cis-lunar space directly feeds into knowing how to build and operate a Mars transfer vehicle.What I am concerned about is a lack of a detailed plan. And by plan I mean a detailed list of technologies and techniques that need to be developed and proven before going to Mars, and a rough budget for accomplishing that in a number of different ways.And instead of this piecemeal development approach, the President and Congress should agree on the overall plan and the initial funding that will start it.QuoteISS is not as good of an analog. It needs resupply every few weeks and is in a different space environment.Actually it doesn't need to be resupplied every few weeks, as the Orbital & SpaceX CRS accidents showed. They can store quite a bit of supplies on the ISS. Plus you can park cargo modules full of supplies at the ISS just like they propose for this hab.I'm not sure I understand the ROI of this yet - what is being tested that can only be done in this way.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/19/2016 08:28 pmIt appears to be a less capable version of the ISS, but in a far more remote (and expensive) location.How does this help us get to Mars, which is NASA's current internal goal?A cis-lunar habitat capable of long duration autonomous flight is basically a Mars transfer vehicle without a propulsion system. Gaining experience building and operating a habitat in cis-lunar space directly feeds into knowing how to build and operate a Mars transfer vehicle.
It appears to be a less capable version of the ISS, but in a far more remote (and expensive) location.How does this help us get to Mars, which is NASA's current internal goal?
ISS is not as good of an analog. It needs resupply every few weeks and is in a different space environment.
Can we stop pooh poohing everything that doesn't have to do with another rocket company and acknowledge the possible benefits of the Orbital ATK design?
Give it a rest you don't need humans in space to test hardware. Just send the hardware...That's why it's called a "hardware test"...
Quote from: gospacex on 05/20/2016 01:20 pmAnd proposed by a company (ATK) which is most proficient at finding govt contracts, not creating something economically viable on its own.I guess SpaceX
Can we please give the "If it isn't made by SpaceX it shouldn't happen" attitude a rest?
A spacestation at EML-2 (or EML-1) is where the Mars Transfer Vehicles (MTV) return to. Only small capsules have heat shields able to perform Earth reentry, so the rest of a very expensive vehicle would be thrown away. An EML-1/2 to LEO flight needs more propellant than the trip back from Mars.
The MTV can then be inspected and serviced at the EML-2 spacestation permitting reuse. Chemical MTV are then be provisioned, refuelled and sent back to Mars with a new crew. The SEP tugs given a new cargo and propellant and sent on their way.p.s. The spacestation would spend the rest of its time providing similar services to the lunar landers.
You may be interested in what happened to the Urine Processor Assembly on the ISS. It worked perfectly on the ground. It worked fine in space too until the astronauts started using it. Then it got clogged by calcium crystals. Turns out that the astronauts have more calcium in their urine due to bone loss. If that had happened on the way to Mars they would have run out of water if they couldn't have aborted and returned in time. It could have been tested thoroughly in space without humans present. They even could have sent up plenty of urine from Earth to run through the thing. Yet they never would have caught that problem until is got used in space by humans.
You're just not going to get a detailed plan for anything. There are several historical examples of a fully detailed and costed plan being presented and the sticker shock killing it. The irony is then NASA got funded for roughly the same amount over the next decade yet didn't get anywhere.
This habitat is about building capability. Which is a smarter way to navigate the politics. It is easy to get people to agree to smaller things at a time. Eventually all of those adds up to the capability to do something big.
It would be helpful to look at the visiting vehicle schedule and see just how often ISS gets a supply ship. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/visiting-vehicle-launches-arrivals-and-departures) Though the station can ride out a halt in deliveries for a few months they still need a pretty steady cadence of resupply to keep that margin and remain operational.
Being in LEO the station gets other benefits too like better communications, more benign thermal and radiation environments, and quick return capability for the crew.
A Mars transfer vehicle will not have those luxuries. A habitat in cis-lunar space though can be resupplied more often than a Mars vehicle, though not nearly as much as ISS
...and if needed the crew can still return in just a few days.
The other difficulties deep space presents will still be there. Longer and longer duration flights can be tested in very similar conditions to interplanetary space before having to leave the Earth-Moon system. Once a crew can be kept alive long enough to do a Mars mission in cis-lunar space the same hardware, techniques, and lessons learned will with very minor modification keep a crew alive to Mars and back.