Author Topic: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions  (Read 3438 times)

Offline drzerg

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Kyiv
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #20 on: 09/30/2017 07:58 PM »
but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • France
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #21 on: 09/30/2017 08:10 PM »
but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.

Why bother for only half a dozen flights? How does the LES work with Dragon inside the cargo bay?

As long as NASA astronauts and cargo are on board, the BFR will need NASA oversight and certification.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #22 on: 09/30/2017 08:13 PM »
but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.

There's going to have to be some certification of BFR by NASA if used. Let's not forgot how precious their cargo is going up and down.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2190
  • Canada
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #23 on: 09/30/2017 08:22 PM »
While the bit with the ISS isn't exactly Mars-centric, it now leads me to wonder how they'll handle airlocks and docking.

They don't need airlocks. But docking the BFR with the ISS is going to put a lot of mechanical stress on the IDS.

The bigger issue is getting NASA to certify BFR for ISS operations, and SpaceX implementing any changes, before ISS is retired. I don't see that ever happening.

If the BFS is serving the ISS, then it make sense to replace the current IDS docking system with a more robust docking demi-module with the IDS as a sub-system for pressurized connection and the new demi-module for the mechanical connection.

 :) SpaceX will need some sort docking hardware to connected with orbital infrastructures. They might as well as sell and delivered a comparable docking module to anyone who needs a docking port in space. :)


Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • France
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #24 on: 09/30/2017 08:31 PM »
If the BFS is serving the ISS, then it make sense to replace the current IDS docking system with a more robust docking demi-module with the IDS as a sub-system for pressurized connection and the new demi-module for the mechanical connection.

It took the best part of 20 years to develop IDS and its various implementations. It's a bit late to make a new one expecially for BFR with the ISS being decommissioned after 2024.

Quote
:) SpaceX will need some sort docking hardware to connected with orbital infrastructures. They might as well as sell and delivered a comparable docking module to anyone who needs a docking port in space. :)

Why ? What sort of orbital infrastructures is it planned to dock with? Refueling will be done by the aft engine skirt.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26874
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6777
  • Likes Given: 4807
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #25 on: 09/30/2017 08:32 PM »
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #26 on: 09/30/2017 09:01 PM »
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.  Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

Offline Nathan2go

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • United States
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #27 on: 09/30/2017 09:31 PM »
...
What I'd rather see is Bezos to realize that Blue is in a difficult position competitively and to offer to cooperate with or become a 49% partner with Musk. ...
In order to shut-down SLS, I think NASA needs two commercial companies that can provide the heavy lift service.

I can see SpaceX and Blue developing a standard interface to an orbit propellant depot.  But I don't see them sharing rockets.

If bigger rockets really make little ones obsolete, then New Armstrong will replace New Glenn.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 09:32 PM by Nathan2go »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26874
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6777
  • Likes Given: 4807
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #28 on: 09/30/2017 10:52 PM »
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.  Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

NASA has a critical role in tech development, especially stuff like NTR. But I don't think they should do logistics.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3743
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 1331
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #29 on: 09/30/2017 11:04 PM »
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.
THIS is the type of thing I've been saying for years!! :) But Robotbeat summarized it best.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #30 on: 09/30/2017 11:12 PM »
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

But of course, if NASA sponsors a rover, it must be cancelled if a SpaceX powerpoint is released with one that looks better. And how exactly are rovers and power not logistics?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26874
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6777
  • Likes Given: 4807
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #31 on: 09/30/2017 11:20 PM »
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

But of course, if NASA sponsors a rover, it must be cancelled if a SpaceX powerpoint is released with one that looks better. And how exactly are rovers and power not logistics?
Tech development and science.

Kilopower is a power source that no private group is developing now.

If someone builds a bunch of capable Mars rovers for cheap, probably would make sense for NASA to use those, too.

I don't see what's so hard to understand that government research agencies should be doing stuff that private industry is not willing to do. NASA should be on the bleeding edge, not wastefully repurposing 40 year old tech at enormous cost.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3329
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2126
  • Likes Given: 2562
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #32 on: 09/30/2017 11:35 PM »
I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.

Ideally, no. The U.S. Government does do sole source contracting though, so it's not like it's not something they would never consider. Just look at Delta IV Heavy, where the USAF only has one option, and ULA only has one customer.

Quote
Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

Ideally that is how it should work, and as the amount of transportation increases then that (hopefully) will inspire more competitors. NASA should also make sure it's component pieces should be as small as practical in order to allow as much competition as possible. Not everything needs to be small, but the U.S. Government does have the ability to divvy up transport contracts in ways that "spread the wealth". Which is good.

Quote
I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

I agree with Robotbeat that the U.S. Government should only do what the commercial sector can't or won't do. More than that though, if the U.S. Government commits to expanding humanity out into space, even if it's only our Moon, then I would hope there is a technical committee that has the authority to make sure design choices make sense overall, and not just for one supplier.

Quote
But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

It's amazing how a single decision by Michael Griffin to build the Ares I/V has affected NASA for decades. Not to mention the U.S. Taxpayer.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3743
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 1331
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #33 on: 10/01/2017 01:49 AM »
If Griffin had championed or chosen an Enhanced EELV fleet - or even Sidemount shuttle-derived lifter - he would have saved many billions and would have served manned exploration missions well. In time, a gradual phasing-out for reusable systems would have been the sensible thing to do. Chaining NASA - and by extension the USA - to giant, low launch rate expendables for decades has hamstrung them.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 03:59 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1693
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions
« Reply #34 on: 10/01/2017 04:02 PM »
I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.  Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

I also agree.  SpaceX will hopefully become an inspiring, strong influence but it would be naive to expect it to be the sole company or entity.  I added this thread to emphasize how SpaceX will interact with other elements created outside itself beyond mere cargo.  If Blue Glen can create its own landers or likewise NASA use Orion or  SEV, I would expect the ITS and its kin (referring to whatever SpaceX names the system in the near future) to dock, interact, and develop synergy with for a grander goal.

In order to shut-down SLS, I think NASA needs two commercial companies that can provide the heavy lift service.

I can see SpaceX and Blue developing a standard interface to an orbit propellant depot.  But I don't see them sharing rockets.

I agree with that too.  My personal guess is that ULA/Boeing/Lockheed will eventually try to develop a third rocket to compete alongside Blue and SpaceX (excluding their work on SLS, but probably leveraging what they did for it and Vulcan).  Having multiple companies with similar capabilities will allow NASA to have a fallback without needing to develop or micromanage it themselves, much has happened when Lockheed failed with the X-33 forcing NASA to rely on the shuttle a further 10 years.

While I hope the Orion quickly gets phased out, the SLS could be kept running in some capacity...again mainly as a fallback.  It's main limitation, aside from being old school and throw-away, is its assembly rate: 4 is the absolute maximum with 2 being the nominal pace per year (some saying 2 or 3 being generous).  It still will have the capability to exceed anything anyone can throw at Mars for a while and afford NASA some means to develop "in house" items (which is debatable, given how even probes are largely a Lockheed affair for instance).  As I estimated in an SLS thread, I would expect the SLS to run say 15 years in the background while the other HLVs get on their feet and prove reliability.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Tags: Mars SpaceX NASA Deimos Phobos