NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Near Earth Asteroids (HSF) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 11/29/2014 02:36 am

Title: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/29/2014 02:36 am
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/orions-em-2-unlikely-occur-prior-2024/

Or 2025, or later....
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/29/2014 02:56 am
No money... No real leadership... No real destinations... Stretching further away into an unknown future... If CXP had been pragmatically and drastically altered - and not butchered by 'not invented here' syndrome... We *may* have been looking at manned lunar missions by 2020 or so....  :'(

But instead; we have what we have.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: mike robel on 11/29/2014 03:04 am
As I watch the program advance at the speed of maple syrup in January, I remember these words.

"Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated 7 to 9 billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all."

And

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."["

The climate is, if anything, less supportive now than then.

Edit:  I'll be 71 in 2024, I was 16 in 1969.  I feel robbed and cheated.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: butters on 11/29/2014 03:15 am
Cue the cancellation of the asteroid redirect mission in 3.. 2.. 1..

NASA has two viable options for post-ISS: L2 gateway or lunar lander. We need one of those elements in order to do anything compelling with SLS and Orion. SLS and Orion are not enough. SLS and Orion are not enough. SLS and Orion are not enough.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 11/29/2014 03:25 am
Cue the cancellation of the asteroid redirect mission in 3.. 2.. 1..

NASA has two viable options for post-ISS: L2 gateway or lunar lander. We need one of those elements in order to do anything compelling with SLS and Orion. SLS and Orion are not enough. SLS and Orion are not enough. SLS and Orion are not enough.

Or both. An L-2 gateway with a lunar lander.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/29/2014 03:37 am
L-2 Gateway with a re-usable Lunar lander. Compete the lander contract out to private industry - perhaps including opening up to an international consortium (Japan & Europe joining forces). Splinter thread for ARM alternates and Gateway designs?
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Lar on 11/29/2014 03:53 am
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 11/29/2014 04:01 am
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 11/29/2014 04:16 am
Thanks Chris, I think it's really useful to have the content of this article available to people! Whether people support or oppose SLS and Orion, a shared understanding of a realistic timeline for NASA's BEO aspirations should at least help people agree on what they're disagreeing about! ;)
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: su27k on 11/29/2014 04:42 am
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.

0.2% of the federal budget is $7 billion, if you add up all the SpaceX contracts with NASA it's about $5 billion, for that amount of money NASA got or will get a new launch vehicle that can compete in the international market, a cargo ship with down mass capability, a manned spaceship that can do vertical landing, 12 resupply flights to ISS, 6 crewed flights to ISS. Yeah, not much of anything indeed.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: zodiacchris on 11/29/2014 06:00 am
What is the opposite of a party thread? Bespoke handcrafting of Orion heat shield, maintaining the workforce to fly SLS once in a blue moon, and all culminating in a 30 day trip in 10 years time to a piece of wrapped asteroid. Don't get me wrong, as a geologist I like asteroids, but we already have a fair bit of that stuff down here, it falls down the gravity well by itself. Is this important enough to blow the budget of the next 10 years on?

Cue in Talking Heads 'Stop making Sense' album: We're on a way to nowhere... :'(
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/29/2014 07:07 am
It`s almost like someone planned it that way...
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Proponent on 11/29/2014 08:05 am
It`s almost like someone planned it that way...

And, indeed, that makes perfect sense in Blackjax's analysis (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421) of Orion/SLS.  Perpetual development without emphasis on actually flying does benefit some parties.  The protracted uncertainty of what engines SLS will use when the RS-25Ds run out, developing ICPS to fly only once or twice then developing another upper stage, the uncertainty over what that second upper stage will be, etc., suggest that perpetual development is the whole point.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Eerie on 11/29/2014 08:31 am
Cue the cancellation of the asteroid redirect mission in 3.. 2.. 1..

NASA has two viable options for post-ISS: L2 gateway or lunar lander. We need one of those elements in order to do anything compelling with SLS and Orion. SLS and Orion are not enough. SLS and Orion are not enough. SLS and Orion are not enough.

Orion already has ESA module. Now NASA just needs to let China build the lunar lander, and we can have ISS ON THE MOON!
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: redliox on 11/29/2014 08:47 am
With luck Orion and SLS will survive the next round of political elections, including a new president, but I honestly never liked the whole ARM scheme.  Keep the rocket, lose the crazy idea.  Once the current administration leaves, I guarantee ARM goes on the chopping block...if not the shredder.

If they are insistent on asteroids before Mars, then they should change the mission to sending humans, not a bag-probe.  The whole point was to reach interplanetary space on a trip lasting from half a year to a full one as a test run for Martian expeditions that would last three times as long.  A near-Earth asteroid orbiting the sun suits the job.  How the heck NASA misinterpreted that is crazy, and why few people like ARM much.

If they can't do an asteroid, some lunar science wouldn't be a bad alternative.  Testing out new deep space vehicles would be great too, such as the habitat module Orion would need to haul with for anything beyond the Moon.  Whatever happens, a new plan will be needed to fill the void.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/29/2014 09:24 am
How the heck NASA misinterpreted that is crazy, and why few people like ARM much.

It's not misinterpretation, it's re-interpretation. There's a "friendly mandate" to go to an asteroid, but seemingly nobody willing to pay for actually sending a crew to meet one in interplanetary space, so with a bit of word-wrangling, ARM was born - they're sending human beings to "an asteroid" after all...  :P
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/29/2014 11:29 am
There's a couple of perfectly good asteroids/primordial rubble piles that can be reached with less delta-vee than the lunar surface - Deimos and Phobos. I really think the idea should be seriously revisited. I'm not joking. They are neither the 'been there done that' Moon (God, I hate that putdown) nor anywhere else mankind has been. They don't require tens of billions to get the 'Entry, Descent & Landing' of a 40 ton manned ship on the Martian surface.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/taking-aim-phobos-nasa-flexible-path-precursor-mars/

But they would be better than the Inspiration Mars flyby for probably not a hell of a lot more money, they would demonstrate true deep space propulsion, life support, communications, navigation, technology and human operations and inspiration. They could collect formidable science with a human and robotic partnership. High-definition TV views of astronauts floating at zero feet above little worlds that are actually bigger than mountains or cities, with Mars looming huge on the sky. The crew could collect sample return probes sent into orbit before and during their mission. I'll not discuss equipment and architectures here and now. But this would be the sort of mission SLS and Orion - augmented with mission modules and propulsion stages - were born to do. Or alternative vehicles yada, yada.

If sending humans to the Martian surface costed, oh; about $200 billion, then I think the above mission could cost far less than half that spread over a 12-to-14 year period with only a modest increase to NASA's budget and working with International partners. I'm trying to be an optimist, but today; it's very hard.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35872.msg1273331#msg1273331

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFgayzZ5KTM
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: IRobot on 11/29/2014 11:47 am
Personally I see a much bigger business case in asteroids than on Mars.  But NASA is not about business, it's about science, so this one-off mission is not very important if it is not thought as a business opportunity.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Wigles on 11/29/2014 11:59 am
Personally I see a much bigger business case in asteroids than on Mars.  But NASA is not about business, it's about science, so this one-off mission is not very important if it is not thought as a business opportunity.

I think you'll find NASA intends to be about science but ends up being an element of politics.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: K-P on 11/29/2014 12:02 pm
Or how about exploring an asteroid or two already on a stable orbit and doing some Mars -related science at the same time?

And gathering valueable knowledge of performing crewed deep-space missions at the same time?

How about that...?

No need for landers, no need to choose asteroid OR Mars.
No need for giant doggybags for capturing asteroid and sending it to another trajectory/orbit.

How about that...?

What is the problem with Phobos/Deimos missions? Really, what...?  :o
Yes yes, delta-v & delta-t obviously, but if we'd really focus on Mars orbital missions, we would get 2 or 3 slam dunks at the same time.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Rocket Science on 11/29/2014 12:34 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/orions-em-2-unlikely-occur-prior-2024/

Or 2025, or later....
Thanks for the article Chris, even though it resulted with my morning coffee spat all over my keyboard...Gota go clean it up now... ;D
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 11/29/2014 12:57 pm


There's a couple of perfectly good asteroids/primordial rubble piles that can be reached with less delta-vee than the lunar surface - Deimos and Phobos. I really think the idea should be seriously revisited. I'm not joking. They are neither the 'been there done that' Moon (God, I hate that putdown) nor anywhere else mankind has been. They don't require tens of billions to get the 'Entry, Descent & Landing' of a 40 ton manned ship on the Martian surface.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/taking-aim-phobos-nasa-flexible-path-precursor-mars/

I think that's part of the Flexible Path, but supposed to be after visiting an asteroid out in the wild.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 11/29/2014 01:14 pm
With luck Orion and SLS will survive the next round of political elections, including a new president, but I honestly never liked the whole ARM scheme.  Keep the rocket, lose the crazy idea.  Once the current administration leaves, I guarantee ARM goes on the chopping block...if not the shredder.

If they are insistent on asteroids before Mars, then they should change the mission to sending humans, not a bag-probe.  The whole point was to reach interplanetary space on a trip lasting from half a year to a full one as a test run for Martian expeditions that would last three times as long.  A near-Earth asteroid orbiting the sun suits the job.

Hell, yes.

Quote
How the heck NASA misinterpreted that is crazy, and why few people like ARM much.

It sure is why I don't like it.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 11/29/2014 01:19 pm
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

That is bovine excrement.  Nuspace isn't going to be any better.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: muomega0 on 11/29/2014 01:36 pm
Quote
“The EM-1 flight will tell NASA a great deal about the system. EM-2 is about seven years away. The current thinking is that it will be the first crewed flight,” added the ASAP minutes. The changes may actually benefit SLS, given the rocket is continuing to promote her superior upmass capability for non-crewed missions. SLS managers have been busy working on fairing requirements to loft what is known as the ARRM (Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission
The HSF components that would close the gap and take crew to the moon and mars, has now evolved into only one advantage:  carries more mass in one shot than a smaller LV and its only missions are without crew.  Fly a rocket, then wait 7 years and fly it with crew.  Where do folks sign up?

As I watch the program advance at the speed of maple syrup in January, I remember these words.

"Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated 7 to 9 billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all."
And
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."["
The climate is, if anything, less supportive now than then.
Edit:  I'll be 71 in 2024, I was 16 in 1969.  I feel robbed and cheated.
LEO for decades, not since July.     What specifically would you cut at NASA to fund a mission that meets your dreams?  If folks did not hang on to old technology with better options available (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34843.msg1292359#msg1292359), would not a significant more number of crewed and uncrewed Exploration missions occur?   Why is it that every path forward is compromised with these two programs?   Here is  one outline of a budget plan to begin an asteroid trip by 2025 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34843.msg1291876#msg1291876), but it requires that both SLS/Orion be cancelled.

Let NASA build a depot and transportation infrastructure, while the Lunar Mission One (http://www.lunarmissionone.com/) heads to the moon at substantially less costs by 2025, while NASA travels BEO to an asteroid..will multiple flexible path missions within the budget with the chance of a plus up by 2025 meet your dreams?

There's a couple of perfectly good asteroids/primordial rubble piles that can be reached with less delta-vee than the lunar surface - Deimos and Phobos. I really think the idea should be seriously revisited. I'm not joking. They are neither the 'been there done that' Moon (God, I hate that putdown) nor anywhere else mankind has been. They don't require tens of billions to get the 'Entry, Descent & Landing' of a 40 ton manned ship on the Martian surface.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/taking-aim-phobos-nasa-flexible-path-precursor-mars/
I think that's part of the Flexible Path, but supposed to be after visiting an asteroid out in the wild.
Perhaps some Moonshot Thinking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uaquGZKx_0) is in order.

Or how about exploring an asteroid or two already on a stable orbit and doing some Mars -related science at the same time?
And gathering valueable knowledge of performing crewed deep-space missions at the same time?
How about that...?
No need for landers, no need to choose asteroid OR Mars.
No need for giant doggybags for capturing asteroid and sending it to another trajectory/orbit.
How about that...?
What is the problem with Phobos/Deimos missions? Really, what...?  :o
Yes yes, delta-v & delta-t obviously, but if we'd really focus on Mars orbital missions, we would get 2 or 3 slam dunks at the same time.
Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year.  We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32060.msg1288413#msg1288413)  "A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit.  ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P."   Keep the "visit" work going.

quite a bit of challenging work for old+new space...Catch the wave...to Mars and beyond, with a new reuseable, LV independent architecture (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35839.msg1271161#msg1271161)
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 11/29/2014 02:31 pm
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

That is bovine excrement.  Nuspace isn't going to be any better.

Exactly.

Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.

0.2% of the federal budget is $7 billion, if you add up all the SpaceX contracts with NASA it's about $5 billion, for that amount of money NASA got or will get a new launch vehicle that can compete in the international market, a cargo ship with down mass capability, a manned spaceship that can do vertical landing, 12 resupply flights to ISS, 6 crewed flights to ISS. Yeah, not much of anything indeed.

I was referring to doing anything BEO. SpaceX and others have done some remarkable things over the past couple of years that are worthy of a great deal of praise. I am happy and cheering for them! That is in LEO though. BEO is far more difficult. I also think it is important to note that our LEO program (Commercial Crew + ISS) actually gets more money than our BEO program.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/29/2014 02:51 pm
This story doesn't want surprise me. The ARM has never seemed real. Almost like no one inside NASA is interested or believes in it.

A return to the moon to develop ISRU leading to a permanent presence, utilizing commercial cargo would be the best option for fostering interest, new technologies from space and providing an economic vehicle for commercial enterprises  to innovate.

The SLS mission to no where shows this administrations distain for NASA and Americas lack of interest in math and science. Not to mention a complete lack of imagination.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/29/2014 03:20 pm
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

That is bovine excrement.  Nuspace isn't going to be any better.

If properly tasked and incentivized our aerospace industry (OldSpace and NewSpace) would be able to do more with the same amount of money than the government-controlled and non-compete situation we are in today.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/29/2014 03:31 pm
With luck Orion and SLS will survive the next round of political elections, including a new president, but I honestly never liked the whole ARM scheme.  Keep the rocket, lose the crazy idea.  Once the current administration leaves, I guarantee ARM goes on the chopping block...if not the shredder.

It is true that the current Mars study effort within NASA may not last after the next President takes office, but that ignores the fact that nothing is holding back Congress from pushing their own set of missions for the SLS and Orion.  Yet they haven't.  That is the more important indicator of support for the SLS and Orion than what the current President has proposed.

Quote
If they are insistent on asteroids before Mars, then they should change the mission to sending humans, not a bag-probe.  The whole point was to reach interplanetary space on a trip lasting from half a year to a full one as a test run for Martian expeditions that would last three times as long.  A near-Earth asteroid orbiting the sun suits the job.  How the heck NASA misinterpreted that is crazy, and why few people like ARM much.

I agree with this sentiment.  My interpretation of what Obama originally proposed was that visiting an asteroid would be part of showing that we could operate that far from Earth, and not that it was focused on the asteroid itself.  Kind of like for Apollo the science was secondary to the stated goal, which was to land a human on the Moon and return them safely to Earth.

That type of mission would also be in keeping with what the Augustine Commission suggested.

Quote
If they can't do an asteroid, some lunar science wouldn't be a bad alternative.  Testing out new deep space vehicles would be great too, such as the habitat module Orion would need to haul with for anything beyond the Moon.  Whatever happens, a new plan will be needed to fill the void.

If we're going to make a commitment to reaching Mars, then the Moon is a distraction because of the unique hardware that would be needed for the Moon.  If the goal is not Mars, then sure the Moon is a fine goal.  But neither really need the Orion, since it's unique capabilities are only needed when you are only sending four or less people to the Moon for a short trip.  Any trips of longer length or requiring more people won't use the Orion, and it's not flexible enough to be evolved into something useful for the future.  It's a short-term solution for a niche need.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/29/2014 03:35 pm
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

That is bovine excrement.  Nuspace isn't going to be any better.

If properly tasked and incentivized our aerospace industry (OldSpace and NewSpace) would be able to do more with the same amount of money than the government-controlled and non-compete situation we are in today.
True, but the problem won't be solved with your own solution of replacing the current plans with......vague and undefined "technology development" proposals either. Such plans, even if carefully designed, would be implemented poorly by Congress et al. given that there's no such "master plan" as planetary n' science reviews possible for "technology break-though in HSF".  ::) ::)

Alas, I just don't see a more concrete plan possible in BLEO operations, regardless of whether SLS/Orion is involved or not...
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: redliox on 11/29/2014 03:51 pm
With luck Orion and SLS will survive the next round of political elections, including a new president, but I honestly never liked the whole ARM scheme.  Keep the rocket, lose the crazy idea.  Once the current administration leaves, I guarantee ARM goes on the chopping block...if not the shredder.

It is true that the current Mars study effort within NASA may not last after the next President takes office, but that ignores the fact that nothing is holding back Congress from pushing their own set of missions for the SLS and Orion.  Yet they haven't.  That is the more important indicator of support for the SLS and Orion than what the current President has proposed.

Quote
If they are insistent on asteroids before Mars, then they should change the mission to sending humans, not a bag-probe.  The whole point was to reach interplanetary space on a trip lasting from half a year to a full one as a test run for Martian expeditions that would last three times as long.  A near-Earth asteroid orbiting the sun suits the job.  How the heck NASA misinterpreted that is crazy, and why few people like ARM much.

I agree with this sentiment.  My interpretation of what Obama originally proposed was that visiting an asteroid would be part of showing that we could operate that far from Earth, and not that it was focused on the asteroid itself.  Kind of like for Apollo the science was secondary to the stated goal, which was to land a human on the Moon and return them safely to Earth.

That type of mission would also be in keeping with what the Augustine Commission suggested.

Quote
If they can't do an asteroid, some lunar science wouldn't be a bad alternative.  Testing out new deep space vehicles would be great too, such as the habitat module Orion would need to haul with for anything beyond the Moon.  Whatever happens, a new plan will be needed to fill the void.

If we're going to make a commitment to reaching Mars, then the Moon is a distraction because of the unique hardware that would be needed for the Moon.  If the goal is not Mars, then sure the Moon is a fine goal.  But neither really need the Orion, since it's unique capabilities are only needed when you are only sending four or less people to the Moon for a short trip.  Any trips of longer length or requiring more people won't use the Orion, and it's not flexible enough to be evolved into something useful for the future.  It's a short-term solution for a niche need.

Thanks for agreeing with my statements.

Regarding the Moon, don't totally dismiss it.  For starters, Congressmen would more readily agree to it than asteroids because it is a visible goal the Orion can reach at least in orbit.  Second, the 2 main differences the Moon has is in volatiles and day length versus Mars.  Otherwise, once the heatshield is jettisoned the Martian lander would look roughly the same as a lunar lander - you'll notice in the Mars Direct/Semi-Direct schemes the hab lander is an ungainly 'tuna can' with minimal aerodynamics sans the heatshield.  As for gravity, well frankly if landers are built to tolerate Earth's 1g then the 1/3 Martian and 1/6 Lunar gs matter little regarding structure strength.  And, even considering the power and thermal needs of Lunar night, both Mars and Moon require a mix of solar and nuclear energy to back each other up and resistance to temperatures well below Earth's norms.

The mission will be changed well before 2024, but hopefully the end goal of Mars in the 2030s.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: mike robel on 11/29/2014 04:04 pm

The mission will be changed well before 2024, but hopefully the end goal of Mars in the 2030s.

Well, since Mars is always 30 years in the future, the earliest we are looking is now 2044 - 45.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: mike robel on 11/29/2014 04:25 pm

As I watch the program advance at the speed of maple syrup in January, I remember these words.

"Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated 7 to 9 billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all."


And

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."["

The climate is, if anything, less supportive now than then.

Edit:  I'll be 71 in 2024, I was 16 in 1969.  I feel robbed and cheated.

LEO for decades, not since July.     What specifically would you cut at NASA to fund a mission that meets your dreams?  If folks did not hang on to old technology with better options available (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34843.msg1292359#msg1292359), would not a significant more number of crewed and uncrewed Exploration missions occur?   Why is it that every path forward is compromised with these two programs?   Here is  one outline of a budget plan to begin an asteroid trip by 2025 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34843.msg1291876#msg1291876), but it requires that both SLS/Orion be cancelled.

Let NASA build a depot and transportation infrastructure, while the Lunar Mission One (http://www.lunarmissionone.com/) heads to the moon at substantially less costs by 2025, while NASA travels BEO to an asteroid..will multiple flexible path missions within the budget with the chance of a plus up by 2025 meet your dreams?

I'm not even going to bother to state my dream and suggest a meaningless course of action, because I've done it elsewhere and to my representatives, and the site and this thread will have them.  But I will say that NASA has to demonstrate credible progress in their HSF program every two - four years and mount a better information campaign to keep what support they do have.

There is very little, if any hope of "Space State" congressman gathering together to fund 3 billion more dollars per year.

Face it, $3B is relatively small potatoes for the country, but that goal seems to be the minimum necessary to allow NASA to craft a well-defined path to future success.

Obviously they are unable to make a deal or it isn't that important even to them to even try.

Perhaps then, it would be best to "not to go at all".



Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Steam Chaser on 11/29/2014 04:35 pm
As dysfunctional as they are, SLS and Orion probably still have too much support in Congress to dismantle.  However, it's even more obvious now than it was almost 10 years ago when they began in Ares/Orion form that they aren't on a course to do anything worth their cost.  Given the problems with Orion's schedule outlined in the article, resulting in what amounts to at most test missions for Orion before 2024 (i.e.: after 20 years of well-funded development) followed by the tamed asteroid mission that noone seems to want or expect, I'd suggest cancelling Orion.  This is more politically achievable than removing both the rocket and Orion as was attempted for FY2011.  SLS has much stronger politically than Orion, given its larger budget, associated ground systems budget, and well-placed Congressional backers.  Witness that the SM was successfully extracted from the U.S. Orion plate.  SLS and Orion are mutually supportive in Congress, so removing Orion would have to be done while genuinely helping SLS, not as a "divide and conquer" strategy.

The Orion yearly budget is over $1B.  Taken a piece of that and give it directly to SLS to soften resistance.

Take a bigger piece (maybe $400M/year or so) and fund some SLS launched robotic Planetary Science, Robotic Precursor, and Exploration Technology Demonstration missions like Europa Clipper, lunar sample return, lunar polar volatiles explorer, the robotic part of ARM, and/or Mars.  There's probably an Orion related company in Colorado that could help with robotic Mars missions.  Some of these missions already have potential funding sources (e.g.: Europa Clipper already gets ~80M/year for studies, LPVE could get Exploration Technology funding, lunar sample return is a contender for Planetary Science New Frontiers funding, ARM is already trying for a budget), so this might result in more missions than the slice of the Orion budget pie would imply.

Take a similar slice and use it for a BLEO transport capability with SLS participation for cargo and crew, and a BLEO hab/gateway/station capability, managed more like COTS than Constellation, using competition, skin in the game, and the rest of the COTS approach.  Competitors could leverage commercial
cargo and crew work (e.g.: Cygnus, CST-100, Dragon, Antares, Falcon, Dream Chaser, EELV crew capabilities, Blue Origin vehicle), other NASA partnerships (e.g.: BEAM), and even Orion itself for this.  One possibility would be for commercial crew vehicles to send crew to the SLS-launched BLEO hardware in LEO before it leaves, relieving SLS and the BLEO COTS effort of crew launch issues like LAS, strengthening the U.S. commercial launch industry, and strengthening the commercial crew business. With habitat capability, competitors might come up with a much smaller capsule than Orion like the Inspiration Mars approach.  As the commercial crew development or Soyuz crew operation budgets are replaced with a commercial crew operations budget that is hopefully smaller than those 2 combined, some additional funding might come from those budget pies for the later, more expensive development years of this "BLEO COTS".

Since Europe would no longer have Orion SM responsibility, they might be able to contribute something else to the picture.

It seems like this would support many factions without requiring more money overall: SLS, NewSpace, Planetary Science, Obama FY2011 robotic precursor and technology supporters, ISS (by strengthening commercial crew), etc.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Avron on 11/29/2014 04:40 pm

Obviously they are unable to make a deal or it isn't that important even to them to even try.

Perhaps then, it would be best to "not to go at all".


Remember all of this is due to lobbing by the "contractors" , when  the last "attempt" was cancelled. Clearly its not about space-flight but $$$ This will be cancelled as well, as the mission is not HSF but redistribution of wealth. All the money is the world will just accelerate the wealth gain. There is more chance of getting to the moon etc via an Indian spacecraft than one where the driving force is "contractor" needs.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Hauerg on 11/29/2014 04:43 pm
A real NEA mission would have been risky. So no mission.
The plan WAS, NOT to have AresV/SLS and Orion. Now - or not so now - we have SLS and Orion. And no money left for the journey.
Great plan.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jgoldader on 11/29/2014 05:22 pm
A real NEA mission would have been risky. So no mission.

Yep.

A couple billion dollars to launch a retrieval sat and a couple billion more to send astronauts up to carefully cut a hole in a plastic bag and pull out a handful of dirt isn't worth it. 

So is there some way to make lemonade from this mess?

Option 1: can the retrieval and dedicate the retrieval launch to general NEO study.  Launch a detection telescope to LEO or HEO and a bunch of m^3- sized flyby spacecraft to known NEOs.

Option 2: do the retrieval but explore the rock via remote operations.  How could it be impossible to do with the VR tech of today?  This could be a testbed for remotely-operated lunar rovers.  With Stardust and Hayabusa, we have recent experience with getting a small sample capsule back to Earth. (NASA could make the VR video public for Oculus Rift; there's some real public engagement for you!  Heck, I'd buy a unit for that, and I loathe Facebook.)

I KNOW both of those will cost money, but either seems easier, surely safer, and more productive than the crewed mission as currently envisioned.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 11/29/2014 05:48 pm
One of my issues with ARRM is that the process of capture of the object will cause a lot of messing up the surface, when it is de-spun. While that's not directly an issue for picking up a boulder, Philae shows the possible issues with landing to achieve that.

But, that de-spin if they capture a whole small object will completely compromise the pristine-ness of the surface. Surely one of the most important reasons for visiting the object in the first place? :-(

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 11/29/2014 05:59 pm
The SLS mission to no where shows this administrations distain for NASA and Americas lack of interest in math and science. Not to mention a complete lack of imagination.

I disagree with this entirely when it is stated as a "black and white" issue. The SLS "mission to nowhere" shows exactly how much interest in math and science America has: some, but not much. It shows exactly how much Congress and the current administration want to fund NASA: some, but not much. Finally, the apparent opportunity to launch relatively tiny mission-specific modules underneath an Orion bound for "nowhere" shows how much imagination we have: some, but not much.

On the bright side it is possible that after the ARM concept is abandoned, this later launch date for Orion will allow incorporation of a mission module into the first crewed launch. Maybe a Cygnus? Maybe something else without a heat shield that could be assembled on the Orion tooling, as in the old "kissing Orions" proposal?

(EDIT to add, for those interested and unfamiliar with the proposal: Lockheed-Martin called "kissing Orions"  "Plymouth Rock." http://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/sbag2/presentations/PlymouthRockasteroidmission.pdf)
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Lar on 11/29/2014 06:11 pm
What is the opposite of a party thread? Bespoke handcrafting of Orion heat shield, maintaining the workforce to fly SLS once in a blue moon, and all culminating in a 30 day trip in 10 years time to a piece of wrapped asteroid. Don't get me wrong, as a geologist I like asteroids, but we already have a fair bit of that stuff down here, it falls down the gravity well by itself. Is this important enough to blow the budget of the next 10 years on?

Cue in Talking Heads 'Stop making Sense' album: We're on a way to nowhere... :'(
The asteroid mission has never made a lot of sense to me. By the mid 20's I expect PRI and DSI to be actively mining, or they will have failed. Further, Hayabusa 2 will get a lot more science accomplished, I expect, since it's staying at a C type asteroid for 18 months..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDbtQd4LeuA&feature=share

If you really want a worthwhile mission, Phobos and Diemos seem like good possibilities to me. SpaceX might already BE on Mars or on the way, by the mid 2020s, but they plan to bypass those moons. So, NASA, send a crew there.

Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

That is bovine excrement.  Nuspace isn't going to be any better.

Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 11/29/2014 06:30 pm

Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

No, that is a completely wrong comparison.    Typical of nuspace to use such inaccurate comparisons.  SLS is not oldspace.  SLS is gov't space.

How about this for a nuspace comparison?  This is what you get:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35974.0
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Waz_Met_Jou on 11/29/2014 07:06 pm
When I first heard about the ARM I was actually kind of excited about it. Developing SEP technology and providing Orion/SLS with a useful destination to test the complete system by 2021, followed by a mission to an asteroid in deep space by 2025 as a precursor to Mars orbit? Sign me up!

A bagged asteroid as the culmination of 13 years of development and billions of dollars with no clear follow-on program? Slightly less exciting.

I've been trying to keep up with the evolvable Mars campaign study; it's a nice idea but even that is very vague on the time between Mars orbit and ARM, and on the six years between EM-1 and ARM as well.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Poole Amateur on 11/29/2014 07:08 pm
Jim, don't think that is quite fair. ..and probably not worthy of you.


Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

No, that is a completely wrong comparison.    Typical of nuspace to use such inaccurate comparisons.  SLS is not oldspace.  SLS is gov't space.

How about this for a nuspace comparison?  This is what you get:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35974.0
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 11/29/2014 07:14 pm
Jim, don't think that is quite fair. ..and probably not worthy of you.


That was my point, the comparison is just as wrong as mine.

Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Poole Amateur on 11/29/2014 07:25 pm
Jim, don't think that is quite fair. ..and probably not worthy of you.


That was my point, the comparison is just as wrong as mine.

Ah...OK. Thanks for the clarification.  FWIW, I'm far from convinced that SLS and/or Orion is going to have enough inertia to survive beyond the next Presidential elections. For me, a layman who is just interested in space, it appears that this is a program without a proper objective and thus a difficult sell to both the public and any future administration.  Of course I am very willing to be corrected.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Lar on 11/29/2014 07:42 pm

Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

No, that is a completely wrong comparison.    Typical of nuspace to use such inaccurate comparisons.  SLS is not oldspace.  SLS is gov't space.

How about this for a nuspace comparison?  This is what you get:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35974.0

I am indeed speaking of New Space vs Gov't Space... and you're right, crashes happen. In new, old, government, soviet, russian, chinese, japanese, indian, whoever. Sadly.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 11/29/2014 08:27 pm
SpaceX might already BE on Mars or on the way, by the mid 2020s, but they plan to bypass those moons. So, NASA, send a crew there.

Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

That is bovine excrement.  Nuspace isn't going to be any better.


SpaceX is not going to Mars without massive support from NASA. That could happen and I think it should happen. There is nothing wrong with a NASA led public-private partnership. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

Quote
Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

You are comparing apples and oranges. BEO is not the same as LEO. That is like saying if I wanted to get from America to Europe and I have a couple million dollars I should buy a couple of RVs vs. a jet. Sure the RV's cost less but they won't get me where I need to go.

To borrow from an earlier post: SpaceX is not enough, SpaceX is not enough, SpaceX is not enough!
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: redliox on 11/29/2014 08:33 pm
FWIW, I'm far from convinced that SLS and/or Orion is going to have enough inertia to survive beyond the next Presidential elections. For me, a layman who is just interested in space, it appears that this is a program without a proper objective and thus a difficult sell to both the public and any future administration.  Of course I am very willing to be corrected.

We'll know for sure by 2018.  The SLS is an excellent launch vehicle; it isn't the deathly-firecracker-with-wings the shuttle was.  With the shuttles packed away as museum showpieces (I had the pleasure of seeing Endeavour in LA in October) and Orion set for a test flight, it is more sensible to get SLS ready.  SpaceX is promising but won't be sending us to Mars any sooner than NASA's best dreams and ULA is getting questionable with Russian parts.  All SLS needs is just the right direction, which we all know NASA's been lacking for decades.

Again, if anything is corrected, it's just where Orion and SLS are sent.  It won't be the ARM option, not after 2016 at least.  Personal guess what might become NASA's plan:
1) Lunar Orbit Playground-Proving Ground
2) Martian moons and orbit
3) Mars itself finally

Presuming things remain conservative for at least another decade, Orion might be circling the moon but no efforts will be made to land.  However some lunar science could be done and, more importantly, deep space modules could be brought up and tested.  When things seem ready, an Orion with an EAM is sent to Mars initially to visit Phobos and Deimos.  After that, its just a matter of landing on Mars itself, which is the harder task.

The asteroids would be interesting to visit, but obviously NASA's way seems to be making a quagmire out of them.  Either ditch the ARM way and go to them directly or refocus on Mars.  That seems like a clearer plan to me.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/29/2014 08:50 pm
Jim. I feel for you, I really do, but come on mate..
Times are a changin'
Gov/Old space is failing, and about to crash hard.
Get a job with SpaceX! They would snap you up for a big salary!
Move on..
With respect.

SpaceX would be dead if it weren't for a government space contract. In this way, government space is succeeding because the government's job is only to make the conditions right for their citizens to be able to succeed. The U.S. space industry has had a rebirth post Shuttle and is honestly blooming again especially in commercial launch contracts. There are many projects underway and while only some will succeed, the future is still much brighter than it was a decade ago. Those projects include stratolaunch, dragon v2, CST-100, Dream Chaser, Falcon heavy, F9R, SLS, Orion, ISS, Planetary Resources, Virgin Galactic, Lunar X-Prize, inflatable habitats, Mars 2020, JWST, next-gen Atlas, etc. Just next month we are going to have an ocean recovery attempt on a barge of a reusable booster and an Orion test flight on Delta IV. Many of these projects will fail, but such is what happens in a marketplace of ideas as an industry matures. Failed projects have always just come with the territory, but for every failure, there is the chance for great success as well. All the negativity about the future of U.S. space as evidenced by this thread are not at all justified and just shows that some people will never be satisfied. If the one true solution(which has been revealed to them) is not the only solution that is pursued, then that throws the whole endeavour into doubt as completely innefficient and wasteful. Truth is, you can skin a cat a million different ways. Furthermore, if the way forward isn't mapped out to extreme detail out 10 years or more, then it is all aimless wandering. I for one look forward to the meandering we do in space.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/29/2014 09:02 pm
 [
What is the opposite of a party thread? Bespoke handcrafting of Orion heat shield, maintaining the workforce to fly SLS once in a blue moon, and all culminating in a 30 day trip in 10 years time to a piece of wrapped asteroid. Don't get me wrong, as a geologist I like asteroids, but we already have a fair bit of that stuff down here, it falls down the gravity well by itself. Is this important enough to blow the budget of the next 10 years on?

Cue in Talking Heads 'Stop making Sense' album: We're on a way to nowhere... :'(

I'd 'love' to see someone do a space-themed music video with that song as a soundtrack. The guys who used to do ones for the Shuttle missions; perhaps they could do a satirical one? :(  Or someone else if they had the software? I used to have video editing software that worked - but only with Windows 98 & XP. On Windows 7 now; I got nuthin.  :-[ I did a video 'Requiem For Constellation' once that was surprisingly effective... and sad. I've still got it somewhere.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: rcoppola on 11/29/2014 09:19 pm
I am so tired of the "Orion is taking us to Mars" meme. No...it's not. A Deep Space Habitat with an In-Space Propulsion system is taking us to Mars. And that's not even talking about actual Decent and Ascent to/from the martian surface.

The ARM does nothing to facilitate any of what we actually need. ARM should be cancelled. NASA should provide the commercial space community with a set of basic requirements for DSH - ISP, select the best bids. provide their expertise and get on with it.

Now, if you want to go way out to visit a NEA, while testing out an initial DSH - ISP, then be my guest. Otherwise, stop waisting your/our time.

As a side note, although I will be cheering on Orion's test flight, I'd just assume we scrap her too. We just need a way to get up to a DSH and back from a high velocity Mars return profile. So let's just issue another CC contract for that requirement and let Boeing and SpaceX have at it. 
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Lar on 11/29/2014 09:44 pm

SpaceX is not going to Mars without massive support from NASA. That could happen and I think it should happen. There is nothing wrong with a NASA led public-private partnership. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.


My read, could be wrong, and I'm a heavy koolaid drinker, to be sure, is that Musk is going. If NASA wants to help, great, but he's going to Mars. You may disagree. It may take longer without NASA but our destiny is to be a multiplanet species. Government won't get us that.

Yes, NASA money helped get SpaceX to where it is at this point in time. But it is not a given that they necessarily would be nonexistant/bankrupt/not making any progress. The money helps but it's not the be-all/end-all.

Quote

Quote
Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

You are comparing apples and oranges. BEO is not the same as LEO. That is like saying if I wanted to get from America to Europe and I have a couple million dollars I should buy a couple of RVs vs. a jet. Sure the RV's cost less but they won't get me where I need to go.

There's not THAT much difference between CST-100/DC/Dragon and Orion. My comparision is apt because it focuses on how much you get per dollar, not exactly what it's spent on. I get that Space is Hard but BEO isn't so much harder that it takes 2 orders of magnitude more expenditure. Or even 1.  And Orion isn't really all that BEO capable anyway, as other posters have ably demonstrated.

As others said, cancel Orion, put the money into retiring risk and increasing TRL for depots/DSH/Landers, and bid it out.

I'm delighted that things have changed (w/r/t/ commercial space) to where that's just a statement some disagree with instead of a ludicrously crazy statement.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: notsorandom on 11/29/2014 10:46 pm
The asteroid thing has always been a bit dodgy. No amount of canceling programs and raising budgets will change the fact that there are few targets and limited launch windows. Not even Spacex can pull an asteroid mission off if there is no asteroid.

There are no known targets for ARM which can be captured in time for a 2021 mission. It's not an issue of funding or a particular program being behind schedule. It's what nature has provided us to work with.

The first setup of course would be to start looking for a target with ground based telescopes. That is an extremely cheap first step yet it has yet to be proposed and funded by the White House or NASA, the very people who are gung ho about ARM.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: AncientU on 11/30/2014 12:07 am
The problem with ground based telescope discoveries is that candidate near Earth asteroids (NEAs) are discovered in passing -- too close to earth for any possibility of a retrieval (or unfortunately any realistic action like getting out of its way).  Next time around for a subset of these NEAs is of order ten years.  The only likely candidates for retrieval in under ten years are Earth 'trojans' that reside temporarily in the Earth-Sun L4/L5 zones one AU from here.  These are at best difficult to find from the ground, but could be spotted by an orbiting telescope of sufficient aperture.  There are such rocks identified out there now, and many more waiting to be discovered.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/30/2014 12:51 am
I'm not even going to bother to state my dream and suggest a meaningless course of action, because I've done it elsewhere and to my representatives, and the site and this thread will have them.  But I will say that NASA has to demonstrate credible progress in their HSF program every two - four years and mount a better information campaign to keep what support they do have.

The only active NASA HSF program is the ISS, and though I'm not disputing the need for it to show progress and results, I'm not sure it is able to show any clearly visible ROI at this point.  It's kind of like starting a long-term science experiment and standing over it asking "any results yet?".  Science output is usually not linear like that.

There can be indicators of progress though, and the science output of the ISS has been criticized by the science community, but our politicians are going to have to rely on the science community to tell them whether the science output is worth the effort since there aren't any obvious milestones like being construction complete or landing on the Moon.  Our government funded science efforts in space are very much like our government funded science efforts here on Earth for technology and health related areas - you can't always predict when big progress will happen.

Quote
There is very little, if any hope of "Space State" congressman gathering together to fund 3 billion more dollars per year.

So far the ISS has enjoyed broad support, very much like the science funding for facilities here on Earth have.  But the ISS is a much more fragile eco-system to keep going, so it's funding levels can't survive much change in the wrong direction.

Quote
Face it, $3B is relatively small potatoes for the country, but that goal seems to be the minimum necessary to allow NASA to craft a well-defined path to future success.

Obviously they are unable to make a deal or it isn't that important even to them to even try.

Perhaps then, it would be best to "not to go at all".

$3B/year is not enough for NASA to go anywhere substantial beyond LEO, or at least not on it's own.

We could be at the crossover point where we've gone as far as our government is willing to finance, and to go beyond this point we'll have to wait for the private sector to take the lead.  That could be next year, next decade, or next century - I don't know.

But even setting up shop on the Moon is currently beyond the amount our politicians are willing to fund (Constellation was proof of that), so unless that changes NASA's goals need to change.  The proposed Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) is giving us some insight into what Congress will be willing to do, since even though they don't appear to like ARM they have been unwilling to offer any alternatives of their own.

So inaction at this point is tacit acknowledgement that funding for NASA HSF is coming to an end, although it may not end until the ISS mission is completed.  But nothing so far is being funded to supplant or replace the ISS, after 2020, 2024 or even 2028, so we may be at some sort of end point for government HSF.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2014 01:51 am

Read the story shortly after it was posted and even though I expected it, it still teared me up.

This is a sad state of affairs - truly a sad state. I am an Apollo guy, worked on the Saturn-V's F-1A engine.  I know what it's like to be involved in a massive HSF program being lead by visionaries, by real honest-to-god leaders. Sadly we haven't had any of those at NASA for a very long time and none at all in Congress and the White House for decades.These are the facts on the ground:

1. NASA is not going to go to Mars - it never will. Congress will never fund that much.
2. SLS is far too big to be a CLV unless it's an all-in-one mission launch like the Apollo/Saturn flights to the moon.
3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.
5. Orion has nowhere to go except the ISS and Dragon will do that better and for far less money.
6. ISS will last only a few more years and then NASA will have NOWHERE to go and no way to get there.
7. Congress, Obama and Bolden have taken NASA as far out on the limb as it is possible to be and are now furiously sawing off the limb.

I don't expect anybody to "Like" this post - I don't even like it.
Sad
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/30/2014 02:03 am
And with that, Chuck underlines the story and maybe bookends it, too. Some of us warned of this several years ago during Augustine and probably before. There may (or may not) - be shadowy figures working to eliminate manned space exploration by government. Heck; even commercial space is seeing resistance. The recent movie 'Interstellar' portrayed a luddite, virtually flat earth society that tried to rewrite the history books. Is that movie prescient? And the film 'Gravity' portrayed a completely trashed low Earth orbit infrastructure...

Just saying...  :'(

EDIT: I now turn my weary eyes to China, and the handful of fascinating probe missions in the solar system still to come.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 11/30/2014 02:05 am
I don't understand. Why will President Cuomo cancel SLS?
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/30/2014 02:35 am
I don't understand. Why will President Cuomo cancel SLS?

Lack of funding, and more pressing problems to deal with.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/30/2014 02:43 am
There will always be other 'pressing problems' to deal with. It could be afforded - its just that the powers-that-be don't consider it a priority. Just more 'sci-fi' stuff for 'space geeks'. After ISS splashes some years down the road, the only U.S. Astronauts for quite a few years may be Hollywood ones in movies about Space. Some folk wont be happy until all the spaceships are in museums or confined to old backups of Powerpoints on 'Space Geeks' hard drives. Then, I will resemble that remark...
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: su27k on 11/30/2014 02:59 am
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.

0.2% of the federal budget is $7 billion, if you add up all the SpaceX contracts with NASA it's about $5 billion, for that amount of money NASA got or will get a new launch vehicle that can compete in the international market, a cargo ship with down mass capability, a manned spaceship that can do vertical landing, 12 resupply flights to ISS, 6 crewed flights to ISS. Yeah, not much of anything indeed.

I was referring to doing anything BEO. SpaceX and others have done some remarkable things over the past couple of years that are worthy of a great deal of praise. I am happy and cheering for them! That is in LEO though. BEO is far more difficult. I also think it is important to note that our LEO program (Commercial Crew + ISS) actually gets more money than our BEO program.

How do you know they wouldn't do equally well in BEO? There's nothing magical about BEO, especially if you're talking about cis-lunar space (which is the limit a single SLS/Orion can go). We went there 45 years ago, someone flew a comm sat around the Moon and it went back fine, so no monsters there.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2014 03:06 am
... so no monsters there.

True. There is also tremendous wasted opportunity. :(
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: su27k on 11/30/2014 03:59 am

Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

No, that is a completely wrong comparison.    Typical of nuspace to use such inaccurate comparisons.  SLS is not oldspace.  SLS is gov't space.

How about this for a nuspace comparison?  This is what you get:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35974.0

It would be helpful if you could articulate your point directly, instead of giving out more inaccurate comparisons which will just add to the confusion.

I don't think I'm qualified to put word in your mouth but what do I get to lose: Are you saying the government space program is managed poorly such that no matter which company you put in, they will fail equally? And given the right management/incentive (for example NASA Launch Services Program or Commercial Crew), old space can do just as well as if not better than, new space?
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/30/2014 04:16 am
The asteroid thing has always been a bit dodgy. No amount of canceling programs and raising budgets will change the fact that there are few targets and limited launch windows. Not even Spacex can pull an asteroid mission off if there is no asteroid.

There are no known targets for ARM which can be captured in time for a 2021 mission. It's not an issue of funding or a particular program being behind schedule. It's what nature has provided us to work with.

The first setup of course would be to start looking for a target with ground based telescopes. That is an extremely cheap first step yet it has yet to be proposed and funded by the White House or NASA, the very people who are gung ho about ARM.

There is a natural order to things.  Getting funding to find a target for ARM is something that follows getting ARM approved.  Although the additional funding request may be an item in the ARM budget request.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/30/2014 04:28 am
The problem with ground based telescope discoveries is that candidate near Earth asteroids (NEAs) are discovered in passing -- too close to earth for any possibility of a retrieval (or unfortunately any realistic action like getting out of its way).  Next time around for a subset of these NEAs is of order ten years.  The only likely candidates for retrieval in under ten years are Earth 'trojans' that reside temporarily in the Earth-Sun L4/L5 zones one AU from here.  These are at best difficult to find from the ground, but could be spotted by an orbiting telescope of sufficient aperture.  There are such rocks identified out there now, and many more waiting to be discovered.

If you want to keep an eye on the Earth-Sun L4 and L5 zones you could always send a satellite to them.  If your telescope can fit in a 1U cubesat then something like the CubeSat Ambipolar Thruster can be used to push them there.

The launch costs for a pair of 3U cubsats is under $1 million but you will have to cost building the satellites your self.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: darkenfast on 11/30/2014 05:57 am
The American demographics are changing.  Elections will be largely about "Who can give me more entitlements?", not who has a great vision for the future.  There will be no Mars Program led by the U.S. Government.  I don't know if Musk will ever get there, but he has a much better chance than anyone who is likely to win an election in America.  "I believe we should put a lot more money towards spaceflight!" is a guaranteed FAIL with the food-stamp and welfare crowd.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: notsorandom on 11/30/2014 06:10 am
The problem with ground based telescope discoveries is that candidate near Earth asteroids (NEAs) are discovered in passing -- too close to earth for any possibility of a retrieval (or unfortunately any realistic action like getting out of its way).  Next time around for a subset of these NEAs is of order ten years.  The only likely candidates for retrieval in under ten years are Earth 'trojans' that reside temporarily in the Earth-Sun L4/L5 zones one AU from here.  These are at best difficult to find from the ground, but could be spotted by an orbiting telescope of sufficient aperture.  There are such rocks identified out there now, and many more waiting to be discovered.
An orbiting telescope provides no superior view aside from maybe longer exposure times. These thing really don't need hour long exposures though. Its the same thing with a telescope in an EML point too. A telescope like the one B-612 is proposing which sits closer to the sun and looks out might be some use because it can get more favorable illumination on them. Robotic ground based surveys do pick up NEOs of this size. That is how we know there is a population of them.

However the lack of targets for the ARM mission was my point. When it was proposed there was not any known asteroid which could be retrieved in the quoted time frame. There was only the hope that one might be found. If those who proposed this mission were really interested in it the first thing they would have done is start looking for one they could grab. Compared to any other aspect of this mission or anything in spaceflight really this is a cheap thing to do. Its also something that is of great benefit to other areas too including planetary defense. Congress has in fact mandated these kinds of study for year but without any funding requests being forthcoming. For example of how much this first step might cost the entire array of Pan-STARRS is expected to be only $100 million. Instead of funding these efforts Sliding Spring the only robotic telescope like this in the southern hemisphere is shutting down due to lack of funding.

If we had a rocket sitting on the launch pad right now ready to go we would have no clue where to send it. It doesn't matter who builds that rocket, with what contracting methods, or how big or small it is There is no target now and there is unlikely to be one by 2021. There will certainly be non if we don't start looking.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: mike robel on 11/30/2014 07:11 am

3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.

Fixed these for you:

3.  SLS will not survive the next POTUS or Republican Congress.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy  as a CLV - unlikely.4.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: IRobot on 11/30/2014 08:30 am
An orbiting telescope provides no superior view aside from maybe longer exposure times. These thing really don't need hour long exposures though. Its the same thing with a telescope in an EML point too. A telescope like the one B-612 is proposing which sits closer to the sun and looks out might be some use because it can get more favorable illumination on them. Robotic ground based surveys do pick up NEOs of this size. That is how we know there is a population of them.
Not entirely true, the great benefit of orbiting telescope is avoiding atmospheric turbulence, allowing near diffraction limited imaging.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2014 12:56 pm

3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.

Fixed these for you:

3.  SLS will not survive the next POTUS or Republican Congress.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy  as a CLV - unlikely.4.

It was fine the way it was.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jgoldader on 11/30/2014 07:03 pm
An orbiting telescope provides no superior view aside from maybe longer exposure times. These thing really don't need hour long exposures though. Its the same thing with a telescope in an EML point too. A telescope like the one B-612 is proposing which sits closer to the sun and looks out might be some use because it can get more favorable illumination on them. Robotic ground based surveys do pick up NEOs of this size. That is how we know there is a population of them.
Not entirely true, the great benefit of orbiting telescope is avoiding atmospheric turbulence, allowing near diffraction limited imaging.

Well, sure, getting out of the atmosphere helps imaging quality.  But when looking for NEOs, the big benefit is being able to look near the Sun without the pesky bright sky getting in the way.  The B-612 telescope uses its orbit to get better lighting conditions, but a well baffled NEO finder would be able to do a first cut from even LEO, by looking interior to Earth's orbit.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jgoldader on 11/30/2014 07:26 pm

So is there some way to make lemonade from this mess?

Option 1: can the retrieval and dedicate the retrieval launch to general NEO study.  Launch a detection telescope to LEO or HEO and a bunch of m^3- sized flyby spacecraft to known NEOs.

(Snip)

I KNOW both of those will cost money, but either seems easier, surely safer, and more productive than the crewed mission as currently envisioned.

Follow-up: B-612 says the Sentinel mission would cost $450M.  I presume this includes launch?

http://sentinelmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FAQ-FINAL-5.30.13-1.pdf

The Sentinel would cost less than half an Orion, I believe.  Anybody doubt that some enterprising universities can find a way to make a swarm of NEO flyby spacecraft for another $450M?  Put the whole lot up there in one SLS launch.  Done.  Probably less expensive than the asteroid recovery spacecraft itself, surely more useful science.

Doesn't give JSC much to do, of course...
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 11/30/2014 07:45 pm

SpaceX is not going to Mars without massive support from NASA. That could happen and I think it should happen. There is nothing wrong with a NASA led public-private partnership. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.


My read, could be wrong, and I'm a heavy koolaid drinker, to be sure, is that Musk is going. If NASA wants to help, great, but he's going to Mars. You may disagree. It may take longer without NASA but our destiny is to be a multiplanet species. Government won't get us that.

Yes, NASA money helped get SpaceX to where it is at this point in time. But it is not a given that they necessarily would be nonexistant/bankrupt/not making any progress. The money helps but it's not the be-all/end-all.

Just because Musk is saying he is going doesn't mean that he has the resources to. Musk is an amazing guy and someone who should held as a role model for entrepreneurship. That said he is not a space god. He can't just wave his hand and make it so.

Of course government isn't going to colonize the solar system. That is not its job. Throughout history though many of the initial exploratory missions were funded by governments (Columbus, Lewis and Clark). NASA missions are the Lewis and Clark expeditions of space. After that comes the private sector investments that lead to colonization.

SpaceX would still exist without NASA funding. That said they either wouldn't be doing anything HSF related or they would be going at a glacial pace.


You are comparing apples and oranges. BEO is not the same as LEO. That is like saying if I wanted to get from America to Europe and I have a couple million dollars I should buy a couple of RVs vs. a jet. Sure the RV's cost less but they won't get me where I need to go.

There's not THAT much difference between CST-100/DC/Dragon and Orion. My comparision is apt because it focuses on how much you get per dollar, not exactly what it's spent on. I get that Space is Hard but BEO isn't so much harder that it takes 2 orders of magnitude more expenditure. Or even 1.  And Orion isn't really all that BEO capable anyway, as other posters have ably demonstrated.

Really? CST-100, DC, and Dragon are LEO taxis. They only have enough life support for a short time period and DC and CST-100 only have LEO return capable heat shields. Dragon is the most capable of the taxis and does have a lunar return capable heat shield but it doesn't have the life support capacity that Orion has or the in space redundancies (although I personally think it could be used in BEO as a cargo hauler to an EML-2 station). They are perfect for LEO and I am looking forward to seeing them fly.

Orion is not perfect but it has the potential to be used to great effect. If a Dragon V3 comes out and is just as good as Orion then we can think about phasing Orion out.


Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.

0.2% of the federal budget is $7 billion, if you add up all the SpaceX contracts with NASA it's about $5 billion, for that amount of money NASA got or will get a new launch vehicle that can compete in the international market, a cargo ship with down mass capability, a manned spaceship that can do vertical landing, 12 resupply flights to ISS, 6 crewed flights to ISS. Yeah, not much of anything indeed.

I was referring to doing anything BEO. SpaceX and others have done some remarkable things over the past couple of years that are worthy of a great deal of praise. I am happy and cheering for them! That is in LEO though. BEO is far more difficult. I also think it is important to note that our LEO program (Commercial Crew + ISS) actually gets more money than our BEO program.

How do you know they wouldn't do equally well in BEO? There's nothing magical about BEO, especially if you're talking about cis-lunar space (which is the limit a single SLS/Orion can go). We went there 45 years ago, someone flew a comm sat around the Moon and it went back fine, so no monsters there.

I know because of the various spacecraft's capabilities. See above response to Lar.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: laszlo on 12/01/2014 05:14 pm
Since this is a pretty lame mission, I can't say that I'm heartbroken to read this. I'd rather see the money used for something more meaningful, such as the Phobos/Deimos missions mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

In the meantime, for those who really need a bogus asteroid visit mission, try this:

The crew of 3 astronauts leaves NASA headquarters, walks across the Mall to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, finds the biggest meteor in the collection and takes lots of selfies climbing all over the meteor.

Some may say that it's not the same as a manned visit to an asteroid. Neither is NASA's proposed (delayed) mission.

Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Political Hack Wannabe on 12/02/2014 05:41 am
I am going to say something, that is probably sacrilege for most people here, but I just feel the need to say it
(and I'll caveat it with the stand point - this is my opinion, YMMV)

The best chance we had at going back to the moon before the end of the decade was the FY11 budget.  We have the proposed missions we have, because they fit the compromise budget process that we have.  People can complain about the President all they want - remind me who make the final budget process?  (hint, other end of Penn ave)

And I'll grant, that is unfair to suggest that only Congress has control of the budget process.  But if you think NASA should get more money for exploration, why hasn't the appropriation committee not provided more money?

And no, its not actually about entitlements (although some think it is).  Its fundamentally about value, and for many people, NASA hasn't delivered value.  Its cool, and neat, but NASA and Space (And those aren't the same thing) have not produce value that people actively reach for.  If it did, people would be trying to touch space (and touching space doesn't mean you necessarily want to go there - it merely means you are prepared to take action to protect its continued existance). 

So, to bring it back, we have rather limited options - we can try and get very creative with mission ideas like either ARM or Mars 2021 flybys (neither of which builds a lasting growth oriented system).  We can try and get creative with how we do missions (make it about a goal, like buidling a market, rather than a destination, like going to an asteroid). 

This probably won't be a popular post, and may very well get trimmed.  Just felt the need to get some of this off my chest

After edits - saw a few items that had bad grammer
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Nilof on 12/02/2014 02:22 pm
Following up on the post right above: NASA's budget should be compared to the total budget allocated by congress to science. The 2014 NASA budget was 17.7 billion dollars, compared to 7.6 billion spent on the National Science Foundation, and 28.4 spent on the DOE.

Of the DOE spending, ~11 billion was strictly necessary spending for safekeeping old nuclear weapons, and removing that portion it has a similar budget to NASA while being politically far more of a heavyweight(research on solving future energy needs is going to be easier to defend politically than HSF).

So at a similar budget to the DOE and 2.5 times the budget of the NSF, I'd say NASA is actually getting a lot more funding than expected. Some NASA programs have competed with non-space programs that were arguably more deserving of funding at the time (for example, the International Space Station vs the Superconducting Super Colider).

The bottom line is that while curiosity is a great motivator, fear, rivalry, greed or an empty stomach are far more potent motivators. The NASA budget is unlikely to be increased as long as it competes with other budget options that have more political weight, unless the political climate changes in such a way that it doesn't get viewed as part of the research budget.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/02/2014 02:40 pm
How much of the NASA budget is for JPL and the unmanned probes?  It seems to me that the JPL operations do return value for the money.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Nilof on 12/02/2014 03:26 pm
The JPL missions certainly do return a lot of science per dollar. Sadly, there's going to be a lot fewer of them in this decade. Orion/SLS is swallowing up a very big slice of the Nasa budget.

Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle. Splitting the spacecraft into a separate orbital and reentry module like the Soyuz would make a lot more sense for long-duration BLEO spaceflight. A lot of the Orion's weight issues ultimately stem from this. It caused issues for constellation by requiring the Ares I to have a big payload compared to what was workable, and it is creating issues now by requiring a huge stage to send it beyond LEO. And even though it sacrifices weight and makes the reentry harder, it still doesn't provide a long enough mission duration for anything further out than the Moon.

Imho, the best way forward would be to get rid of the Orion entirely, and consider a Dragon expanded with a Cygnus or an MPLM-derived habitat for mission durations that are actually interesting, instead of trying to fight physics to make the Orion reentry work out.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/02/2014 03:30 pm
Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle.

If Orion is too big for a reentry vehicle, then what was Shuttle?

(http://www.americaspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Spacecraft-Views.png)
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 12/02/2014 04:51 pm
Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle. Splitting the spacecraft into a separate orbital and reentry module like the Soyuz would make a lot more sense for long-duration BLEO spaceflight. A lot of the Orion's weight issues ultimately stem from this.

Wrong, it is not "too"big, nor is it for long duration flights.  There is no need to "split"it, and long duration flights will have another module.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Nilof on 12/02/2014 07:42 pm
Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle.

If Orion is too big for a reentry vehicle, then what was Shuttle?


[ Huge embedded image ]


Winged, and too heavy to bring with you beyond LEO. The issue of Orion is that it's geometry is a scale-up of the Apollo shape. But because it is bigger, its ballistic coefficient will naturally be higher and it's L/W ratio will be lower, meaning it has to brake down lower in the atmosphere and be subjected to more g's. To alleviate the issue you have to push it to the edge of material science, which explodes development cost. It also leaves the vehicle oversized and unnecessarily heavy for missions that do not require the extra volume.

The ideal design for the reentry module of a beyond-LEO craft imho, is lightweight and just barely big enough to cram your crew into for the reentry/earth return. If you want living space, there are much more lightweight designs available as a result of the ISS program.

Wrong, it is not "too"big, nor is it for long duration flights.  There is no need to "split"it, and long duration flights will have another module.

The thing is, if it isn't for long-duration flights, and it isn't a competitive LEO vehicle, what is it for? If a vehicle is outperformed by existing vehicles in all but an extremely narrow set of missions and is costly enough to cut NASA's unmanned mission manifest by half, it is a monstrosity that should be canceled immediately. For the very few missions where it may outperform the competition (such as ARM), you're better off accepting the disadvantages of alternative vehicles than wasting your entire manned budget on a vehicle that will never see use.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Oli on 12/02/2014 09:49 pm

Orion's diameter is only 44cm or ~10% larger than that of CST-100. I'm not sure that qualifies as being too big. If you would make it smaller, you'd need an additional habitat module for every transfer to cis-lunar space. I guess its a trade-off.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/03/2014 01:01 am
The JPL missions certainly do return a lot of science per dollar. Sadly, there's going to be a lot fewer of them in this decade. Orion/SLS is swallowing up a very big slice of the Nasa budget.

That is incorrect. SLS/Orion account for about 1/6th of the NASA budget. SMD gets a bit less than a third. SLS/Orion aren't eating up SMD funds. The fact is that the current administration is not a fan of most of what NASA does (that includes manned (except for Com. Space) and unmanned space exploration). The administration has been cutting back on Planetary Science of their own accord.

Quote
Imho, the best way forward would be to get rid of the Orion entirely, and consider a Dragon expanded with a Cygnus or an MPLM-derived habitat for mission durations that are actually interesting, instead of trying to fight physics to make the Orion reentry work out.

Dragon V2 is optimized for manned LEO trips. I don't think you could just slap a hab module on it and it would be good to go. If it can then fine I say lets use it. What I am not in favor of is canceling something we have poured a lot of time and resources into just because we might have something that can do the job coming down the pike.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MattMason on 12/03/2014 01:18 am
My two cents as an ordinary space enthusiast:

SLS isn't a saleable item without a mission. And "asteroid retrieval" certainly isn't going to keep any Congress funding it for long.

But asteroid impact prevention (as in, "Holy crap, it's coming right for us!")? That's saleable. Make a joint session of Congress and make a mix-up film reel of "When Worlds Collide," "Armagaddeon" and "Deep Impact." Tell them that, if a big rock comes right now, we have nothing like that now, as seen in the movies, to stop it.

At the very least, Congress could be convinced to make SLS a vehicle that could do the job. In fact, NASA's already selling us that as "asteroid mining" or something silly. Logical so tin-foil folks won't assume an asteroid is really coming with that message.

And then, NASA can say, "going to the moon and creating a base there will be our starting point." SLS can haul what's needed. This can be the launch point for a new station for exploration, commercial, scientific and world defense. NASA can test out the things that are needed to survive BEO, especially radiation shielding, food production, power systems and fuel production.

All we need is someone to clearly form a plan and a reason. And, get a Commercial Crew/Exploration initiative for any businesses that want to locate there. And bonus points for a hotel initiative.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: JH on 12/03/2014 01:30 am
If Orion is too big for a reentry vehicle, then what was Shuttle?

A really nifty camel?
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Nilof on 12/03/2014 10:31 am

Orion's diameter is only 44cm or ~10% larger than that of CST-100. I'm not sure that qualifies as being too big. If you would make it smaller, you'd need an additional habitat module for every transfer to cis-lunar space. I guess its a trade-off.

Well yes... you'd need an extra habitat for... two transfers to cis-lunar space. One of which is being postponed for god knows how many years. If congress wants a lunar landing, the orbital module can be replaced with a lunar lander. There are very few missions for which you'd want to send a capsule and nothing else BEO.

A 10% linear scaleup corresponds to a ~33% mass increase. It is the difference between a vehicle that can be launched on a Falcon 9/Atlas V 421, and requiring a much more expensive Delta IV heavy or custom-built Ares I to lift it. The extra weight really kills off any hope of using the Orion for any LEO activities.

Compare the current LockMart Orion to Boeing's proposal from 2005, which handled the BEO requirement with an optional orbital module. The capsule itself evolved into the CST-100, which is a financially viable vehicle for sending people to the ISS. It could have served both the BEO and the ISS needs without the current duplication of effort. Now NASA is effectively paying for both proposals.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 11:52 am
There are very few missions for which you'd want to send a capsule and nothing else BEO.

Sure but with Orion you can put any type of cargo in the lower position.

It is the difference between a vehicle that can be launched on a Falcon 9/Atlas V 421.

Boeing's CEV you mention was 26t with mission module and 20t without. Orion is 21.25t.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cevoeing.htm
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Nilof on 12/03/2014 01:15 pm

Boeing's CEV you mention was 26t with mission module and 20t without. Orion is 21.25t.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cevoeing.htm

That is using a high delta-v service module with 9.5 tonnes of Methalox propellant for a lunar mission, which is sized to push the entire stack mass regardless of the mass of the reentry module. The Boeing reentry module would have weighed in at 6.5 tonnes vs 9t for the Orion capsule. And it got reworked into a capsule that actually delivered a competitive offer for ISS crew transport, which was not the case for Orion.

Either way, the Dragon is even lighter and cheaper. Docked to an extended Cygnus, you could get ~36 cubic meters of pressurized space vs 20 cubic meters in an Orion, for a similar mass and a smaller development budget. Both vehicles are already competitive ISS resupply vehicles so they do not have to defend their existence. You also get more redundancy in case of an Apollo 13 incident, which cannot be provided by a single-vehicle design like Orion. And as an added bonus, you don't have to depressurize the entire vehicle for an EVA.

I could go on and on about why I feel that the Orion is a lackluster spacecraft. But my primary argument is that it provides no unique capability that is both useful and was not available before. The budget would be better spent on a specialized spacecraft that is actually capable of extended missions, leaving the reentry role to Dragon.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/03/2014 02:39 pm

Either way, the Dragon is even lighter and cheaper. Docked to an extended Cygnus, you could get ~36 cubic meters of pressurized space vs 20 cubic meters in an Orion, for a similar mass and a smaller development budget.

I love Dragon and I like using an extended Cygnus as a hab but I don't think Dragon can fulfill the BEO role that Orion can. Dragon V2 is optimized for LEO while Orion is optimized for BEO. Dragon V2 doesn't need to have as many redundancies as Orion since it is only going to LEO and back with people.

Quote
I could go on and on about why I feel that the Orion is a lackluster spacecraft. But my primary argument is that it provides no unique capability that is both useful and was not available before. The budget would be better spent on a specialized spacecraft that is actually capable of extended missions, leaving the reentry role to Dragon.

Orion isn't perfect but it also isn't a "lackluster" spacecraft. Why can't we all be happy that we have 2 LEO ships and 1 BEO ship coming down the pike instead of badmouthing Orion and treating Dragon as "the one and only true spacecraft?"
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2014 03:19 pm
Either way, the Dragon is even lighter and cheaper. Docked to an extended Cygnus, you could get ~36 cubic meters of pressurized space vs 20 cubic meters in an Orion, for a similar mass and a smaller development budget.

Oh please, you know its not that easy.

Both vehicles are already competitive ISS resupply vehicles so they do not have to defend their existence.

You could also argue that commercial crew makes no sense when the ISS is retired early (2020/2024).
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: dks13827 on 12/03/2014 07:28 pm
Way too many HSF events these days seems to be in "5 or 10 years, or more".  I would call this a very disturbing trend.  Very disturbing.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 12/03/2014 09:02 pm
Way too many HSF events these days seems to be in "5 or 10 years, or more".  I would call this a very disturbing trend.

It is important to keep track of which "events" really matter. Humans once again launching from the United States matters. Humans once again heading to (and safely returning from) beyond LEO matters. Humans crawling around on a captured piece of asteroid? Not so much.

If the visit to an asteroid is put off far enough, some other crewed mission can be inserted into the manifest before it. That mission, if accomplished successfully, will be a sign of an encouraging rather than disturbing trend!
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/03/2014 10:15 pm


I love Dragon and I like using an extended Cygnus as a hab but I don't think Dragon can fulfill the BEO role that Orion can. Dragon V2 is optimized for LEO while Orion is optimized for BEO. Dragon V2 doesn't need to have as many redundancies as Orion since it is only going to LEO and back with people.

Quote
Orion isn't perfect but it also isn't a "lackluster" spacecraft. Why can't we all be happy that we have 2 LEO ships and 1 BEO ship coming down the pike instead of badmouthing Orion and treating Dragon as "the one and only true spacecraft?"

In terms of redundancies ah, coming down from the ISS isn't the same as pulling over to the side of the road with an car. It is more like flying where you need back up systems. Orion simply has more endurance and a deep space capable communications an navigation ability. Basically more supplies and better electronics. Something a different service module could fix and it is useless for much in BEO.  No lander means can only orbit the moon, no hab means very short missions only and the need to depressurize the cabin is really going to limit spacewalks.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jtrame on 12/03/2014 10:43 pm


I love Dragon and I like using an extended Cygnus as a hab but I don't think Dragon can fulfill the BEO role that Orion can. Dragon V2 is optimized for LEO while Orion is optimized for BEO. Dragon V2 doesn't need to have as many redundancies as Orion since it is only going to LEO and back with people.

Quote
Orion isn't perfect but it also isn't a "lackluster" spacecraft. Why can't we all be happy that we have 2 LEO ships and 1 BEO ship coming down the pike instead of badmouthing Orion and treating Dragon as "the one and only true spacecraft?"

In terms of redundancies ah, coming down from the ISS isn't the same as pulling over to the side of the road with an car. It is more like flying where you need back up systems. Orion simply has more endurance and a deep space capable communications an navigation ability. Basically more supplies and better electronics. Something a different service module could fix and it is useless for much in BEO.  No lander means can only orbit the moon, no hab means very short missions only and the need to depressurize the cabin is really going to limit spacewalks.

Neither Dragon or CST 100 have. airlocks either, and they do not have the comms, the navs, supplies, etc.

At least NASA is talking about Habs.  The opportunity exists to leverage the SLS tooling and build a hab large enough to address shielding and the need for humans to have enough interior space to keep sanity on a long voyage (Skylab 2, if you want to google the concept).  Yes, just a powerpoint, yes no roadmap, yes no funding.

In the 3 years I've been hanging out here this same discussion comes up periodically, the thread keeps changing but the only constant is SLS is being built,  infrastructure at the cape is being changed to accommodate it, the first Orion FTA launches tomorrow, and the naysayers have changed from "it will never fly" to "well it will only fly once, or twice, or definitely not more than three times, or twelve times."
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/03/2014 11:08 pm
Neither Dragon or CST 100 have. airlocks either, and they do not have the comms, the navs, supplies, etc.

Capsules of any type, including the Orion, are not the future of space travel.  They are too small to support humans for any length of time in space, and are really only needed when close to a planet with a thick enough atmosphere.

Quote
At least NASA is talking about Habs.

NASA "talks" about a lot of things, but actually is allowed to do very little per their budget.

Quote
The opportunity exists to leverage the SLS tooling and build a hab large enough to address shielding and the need for humans to have enough interior space to keep sanity on a long voyage (Skylab 2, if you want to google the concept).

There is no known reason that I'm aware of to build habitable modules larger than what we already know how to build for the ISS (essentially ~5m in diameter).  The designs and tooling already exists and the hardware has already been proven out in space.

Building HLV-sized modules limits where the hardware can be built (i.e. transportation limitations), which means factories for existing space hardware can't be used.  That increases the costs for HLV-size missions, which is already an issue for using the Orion and SLS.

Quote
Yes, just a powerpoint, yes no roadmap, yes no funding.

Just like all plans that require the Orion and the SLS...

Quote
In the 3 years I've been hanging out here this same discussion comes up periodically, the thread keeps changing but the only constant is SLS is being built,  infrastructure at the cape is being changed to accommodate it, the first Orion FTA launches tomorrow, and the naysayers have changed from "it will never fly" to "well it will only fly once, or twice, or definitely not more than three times, or twelve times."

The other constant that you forget to mention is the lack of any funding to USE the Orion or the SLS.  That continues to be the true indicator of what's in store for the Orion and SLS, not any of our opinions.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/03/2014 11:28 pm
The other constant that you forget to mention is the lack of any funding to USE the Orion or the SLS.  That continues to be the true indicator of what's in store for the Orion and SLS, not any of our opinions.

I thought they were essentially going to at minimum fly an Apollo 8-esque mission(an achievement in its own right), which although sort of depressing is less depressing than the retreat of U.S. HSF capabilities from Lunar, to LEO and eventually to outsourcing to the Russians with the eventual future trajectory suggesting this will end with a trampoline to test the techniques and capabilities of HSF operations on another planetary surface.

Anyways, spending the real money for payloads to fly SLS frequently is a bit presumptuous. You have to show that it works first. Cancelling yet another HSF program before a more capable alternative is available won't solve anything and will simply perpetuate the trend described above.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/04/2014 03:42 am

Anyways, spending the real money for payloads to fly SLS frequently is a bit presumptuous. You have to show that it works first. Cancelling yet another HSF program before a more capable alternative is available won't solve anything and will simply perpetuate the trend described above.

The trouble is that it can take 8-10 years to develop payloads to go on top of a rocket, any rocket so SLS idles with nothing worthwile to do for an long time and Orion simply can't do much by itself. It can't attempt to replace the ELV the way the shuttle tried but failed to do back before 1986. When it launched communications satellites and so on.  It can't land a man on the moon asap as no lander is in development(unlike Apollo where all elements needed were developed in parrell and like Apollo risks being shutdown for lack of use).
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 12/04/2014 04:27 am
The trouble is that it can take 8-10 years to develop payloads to go on top of a rocket

Sure it can. But it doesn't have to take that long. Particularly if the payload is an easy derivative of a prior payload. In particular, a second Orion modified to be a mission module could come off the existing assembly line in much less time than that. Just leave off the heat shield; how hard can that be to develop?

Now some may think such a payload and the mission it would enable aren't "worthwhile." Frankly, those pessimists would do well to reconsider what's worth what!
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: symbios on 12/04/2014 11:58 am
Way too many HSF events these days seems to be in "5 or 10 years, or more".  I would call this a very disturbing trend.

It is important to keep track of which "events" really matter. Humans once again launching from the United States matters. Humans once again heading to (and safely returning from) beyond LEO matters. Humans crawling around on a captured piece of asteroid? Not so much.

If the visit to an asteroid is put off far enough, some other crewed mission can be inserted into the manifest before it. That mission, if accomplished successfully, will be a sign of an encouraging rather than disturbing trend!

I can not understand this. If we are to expand into space we need resources. It is to expensive to get everything out of any gravity well (Earth/Moon/Mars). We need inexpensive rides to space and we need resources in space.

Any ship that is going to be good enough to travel in our star system has to be built in space. To do this we need a community in space. To do this there has to be resources in space.

Asteroids is the only way I see this ever happening. Anything that will get us there is a good thing. That is why I am positive to this mission and companies working for this goal.

We need to get into space not get stuck in another gravity well.

Edit: (Well it would also be nice to be able to redirect rocks aimed at Earth.)

That is my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: gospacex on 12/04/2014 11:59 am
"Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024" because "Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur at all".
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jgoldader on 12/04/2014 09:41 pm


In particular, a second Orion modified to be a mission module could come off the existing assembly line in much less time than that. Just leave off the heat shield; how hard can that be to develop?

Now some may think such a payload and the mission it would enable aren't "worthwhile." Frankly, those pessimists would do well to reconsider what's worth what!

What will it be used for, how much will it cost, and WHERE'S THE MONEY?  Show me the money!

You can name-call all you want.  I am pessimistic that SLS will ever do anything useful, not because it can't fly (I believe it can and likely will) but because the dollars are not there to do anything with it.  NASA hasn't even given a cost estimate for the asteroid capture probe, has it?  If not, IMO it's either because they have no idea, or they do have an idea and know they'll ever get the money from Congress.

I'm not blaming the engineers, who are doing their best.  But SLS is very, very expensive, and I see no sign of political will to spend money to build payloads for it.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jtrame on 12/04/2014 11:11 pm
Neither Dragon or CST 100 have. airlocks either, and they do not have the comms, the navs, supplies, etc.

Capsules of any type, including the Orion, are not the future of space travel.  They are too small to support humans for any length of time in space, and are really only needed when close to a planet with a thick enough atmosphere.

Quote
At least NASA is talking about Habs.

NASA "talks" about a lot of things, but actually is allowed to do very little per their budget.

Quote
The opportunity exists to leverage the SLS tooling and build a hab large enough to address shielding and the need for humans to have enough interior space to keep sanity on a long voyage (Skylab 2, if you want to google the concept).

There is no known reason that I'm aware of to build habitable modules larger than what we already know how to build for the ISS (essentially ~5m in diameter).  The designs and tooling already exists and the hardware has already been proven out in space.

Building HLV-sized modules limits where the hardware can be built (i.e. transportation limitations), which means factories for existing space hardware can't be used.  That increases the costs for HLV-size missions, which is already an issue for using the Orion and SLS.

Quote
Yes, just a powerpoint, yes no roadmap, yes no funding.

Just like all plans that require the Orion and the SLS...

Quote
In the 3 years I've been hanging out here this same discussion comes up periodically, the thread keeps changing but the only constant is SLS is being built,  infrastructure at the cape is being changed to accommodate it, the first Orion FTA launches tomorrow, and the naysayers have changed from "it will never fly" to "well it will only fly once, or twice, or definitely not more than three times, or twelve times."

The other constant that you forget to mention is the lack of any funding to USE the Orion or the SLS.  That continues to be the true indicator of what's in store for the Orion and SLS, not any of our opinions.

Indeed, if a roadmap and budget is not forthcoming in the near future, we might as well hang it up. 

Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jongoff on 12/05/2014 03:23 pm
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.

You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.

Malarkey. SLS alone gets more in one year than SpaceX and Blue Origin have had in their entire existence. You're talking $2B/yr for SLS and $1B/yr for Orion. That would get you a lot outside of NASA.

~Jon
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jongoff on 12/05/2014 03:36 pm
The asteroid mission has never made a lot of sense to me. By the mid 20's I expect PRI and DSI to be actively mining, or they will have failed. Further, Hayabusa 2 will get a lot more science accomplished, I expect, since it's staying at a C type asteroid for 18 months..

I doubt either PRI or DSI will be mining asteroids by then. They may have sent a small sample return mission by then, but getting to the point where they're ready for mining is a nontrivial project.

The thing most people seem to miss about this is that we'll be bringing back an asteroid or boulder that masses 90-500 tonnes. Sure, Orion will visit it once and bring back some samples, but most of that mass will still be there, now easily reachable by future NASA or commercial missions that want to study ISRU and other things. It'll be in a stable orbit that will last hundreds or thousands of years without any stationkeeping. It's a small new moon, but a new moon nonetheless. I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool Moon Firster, but still am intrigued by this mission, since I think it could make asteroid ISRU a much nearer term possibility.

You wouldn't get that with a robotic small sample return mission like Hayabusa 2 or anything PRI or DSI will be doing soon.

You wouldn't get that by visiting a NEO "free range" for a couple of weeks out in heliocentric orbit.

You wouldn't get that by a trip to a small asteroid that drifts through earth-moon space.

If you care about asteroid ISRU, this could be a really big deal (if done right--always got to throw in that caveat).

Quote
If you really want a worthwhile mission, Phobos and Diemos seem like good possibilities to me. SpaceX might already BE on Mars or on the way, by the mid 2020s, but they plan to bypass those moons. So, NASA, send a crew there.

That's kind of like saying that a trip to the museum would be boring, so you want to climb Everest instead. I totally agree that Phobos/Deimos would be very interesting, and much cooler. But they're also a ton more expensive and difficult to get to than what ARM is proposing. And if followed-up on correctly, ARM would make a future Phobos/Deimos mission a whole lot easier.

~Jon
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/05/2014 06:31 pm
The asteroid mission has never made a lot of sense to me. By the mid 20's I expect PRI and DSI to be actively mining, or they will have failed. Further, Hayabusa 2 will get a lot more science accomplished, I expect, since it's staying at a C type asteroid for 18 months..

I doubt either PRI or DSI will be mining asteroids by then. They may have sent a small sample return mission by then, but getting to the point where they're ready for mining is a nontrivial project.

The thing most people seem to miss about this is that we'll be bringing back an asteroid or boulder that masses 90-500 tonnes. Sure, Orion will visit it once and bring back some samples, but most of that mass will still be there, now easily reachable by future NASA or commercial missions that want to study ISRU and other things. It'll be in a stable orbit that will last hundreds or thousands of years without any stationkeeping. It's a small new moon, but a new moon nonetheless. I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool Moon Firster, but still am intrigued by this mission, since I think it could make asteroid ISRU a much nearer term possibility.

You wouldn't get that with a robotic small sample return mission like Hayabusa 2 or anything PRI or DSI will be doing soon.

You wouldn't get that by visiting a NEO "free range" for a couple of weeks out in heliocentric orbit.

You wouldn't get that by a trip to a small asteroid that drifts through earth-moon space.

If you care about asteroid ISRU, this could be a really big deal (if done right--always got to throw in that caveat).

Quote
If you really want a worthwhile mission, Phobos and Diemos seem like good possibilities to me. SpaceX might already BE on Mars or on the way, by the mid 2020s, but they plan to bypass those moons. So, NASA, send a crew there.

That's kind of like saying that a trip to the museum would be boring, so you want to climb Everest instead. I totally agree that Phobos/Deimos would be very interesting, and much cooler. But they're also a ton more expensive and difficult to get to than what ARM is proposing. And if followed-up on correctly, ARM would make a future Phobos/Deimos mission a whole lot easier.

~Jon
Even a 500t pile of rubble has significant quantities(10s tons)of oxygen in it. If PR or DSI can development processes for extracting the oxygen and place it in cislunar space eg EML1 depot it would help enable a cislunar space transport system.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 12/05/2014 07:47 pm
a second Orion modified to be a mission module could come off the existing assembly line in much less time than that. Just leave off the heat shield; how hard can that be to develop?

What will it be used for, how much will it cost, and WHERE'S THE MONEY?

The funding questions are good, and deserve a fuller response, but in short the money would flow through the existing Orion budget item, and likely via a modification of the existing Orion contract. This as opposed to the specialized asteroid redirect mission hardware, for which there is no existing budget item and no existing contract.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Will on 12/05/2014 08:17 pm
The asteroid mission has never made a lot of sense to me. By the mid 20's I expect PRI and DSI to be actively mining, or they will have failed. Further, Hayabusa 2 will get a lot more science accomplished, I expect, since it's staying at a C type asteroid for 18 months..

I doubt either PRI or DSI will be mining asteroids by then. They may have sent a small sample return mission by then, but getting to the point where they're ready for mining is a nontrivial project.

The thing most people seem to miss about this is that we'll be bringing back an asteroid or boulder that masses 90-500 tonnes. Sure, Orion will visit it once and bring back some samples, but most of that mass will still be there, now easily reachable by future NASA or commercial missions that want to study ISRU and other things. It'll be in a stable orbit that will last hundreds or thousands of years without any stationkeeping. It's a small new moon, but a new moon nonetheless. I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool Moon Firster, but still am intrigued by this mission, since I think it could make asteroid ISRU a much nearer term possibility.

You wouldn't get that with a robotic small sample return mission like Hayabusa 2 or anything PRI or DSI will be doing soon.

You wouldn't get that by visiting a NEO "free range" for a couple of weeks out in heliocentric orbit.

You wouldn't get that by a trip to a small asteroid that drifts through earth-moon space.

If you care about asteroid ISRU, this could be a really big deal (if done right--always got to throw in that caveat).

Quote
If you really want a worthwhile mission, Phobos and Diemos seem like good possibilities to me. SpaceX might already BE on Mars or on the way, by the mid 2020s, but they plan to bypass those moons. So, NASA, send a crew there.

That's kind of like saying that a trip to the museum would be boring, so you want to climb Everest instead. I totally agree that Phobos/Deimos would be very interesting, and much cooler. But they're also a ton more expensive and difficult to get to than what ARM is proposing. And if followed-up on correctly, ARM would make a future Phobos/Deimos mission a whole lot easier.

~Jon

It would be highly relevant to Phobos/Deimos ISRU, which could be a game changer.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jongoff on 12/06/2014 08:23 pm
The asteroid mission has never made a lot of sense to me. By the mid 20's I expect PRI and DSI to be actively mining, or they will have failed. Further, Hayabusa 2 will get a lot more science accomplished, I expect, since it's staying at a C type asteroid for 18 months..

I doubt either PRI or DSI will be mining asteroids by then. They may have sent a small sample return mission by then, but getting to the point where they're ready for mining is a nontrivial project.

The thing most people seem to miss about this is that we'll be bringing back an asteroid or boulder that masses 90-500 tonnes. Sure, Orion will visit it once and bring back some samples, but most of that mass will still be there, now easily reachable by future NASA or commercial missions that want to study ISRU and other things. It'll be in a stable orbit that will last hundreds or thousands of years without any stationkeeping. It's a small new moon, but a new moon nonetheless. I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool Moon Firster, but still am intrigued by this mission, since I think it could make asteroid ISRU a much nearer term possibility.

You wouldn't get that with a robotic small sample return mission like Hayabusa 2 or anything PRI or DSI will be doing soon.

You wouldn't get that by visiting a NEO "free range" for a couple of weeks out in heliocentric orbit.

You wouldn't get that by a trip to a small asteroid that drifts through earth-moon space.

If you care about asteroid ISRU, this could be a really big deal (if done right--always got to throw in that caveat).

Quote
If you really want a worthwhile mission, Phobos and Diemos seem like good possibilities to me. SpaceX might already BE on Mars or on the way, by the mid 2020s, but they plan to bypass those moons. So, NASA, send a crew there.

That's kind of like saying that a trip to the museum would be boring, so you want to climb Everest instead. I totally agree that Phobos/Deimos would be very interesting, and much cooler. But they're also a ton more expensive and difficult to get to than what ARM is proposing. And if followed-up on correctly, ARM would make a future Phobos/Deimos mission a whole lot easier.

~Jon
Even a 500t pile of rubble has significant quantities(10s tons)of oxygen in it. If PR or DSI can development processes for extracting the oxygen and place it in cislunar space eg EML1 depot it would help enable a cislunar space transport system.

Exactly. Learning how to do asteroidal ISRU is pretty darned useful, and this could be done in a way that makes it easier to get to the Moon and Mars.

~Jon
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: savuporo on 12/06/2014 08:50 pm
Orion is optimized for BEO. ..
I would like to point out that this often repeated statement is next to useless and carries almost no information. What is BEO ? Orbit of Europa ? Venusian surface ?
In reality, spacecraft get designed for specific destinations and environments they go to for so many reasons. You either design a spacecraft to go to lunar surface or you dont. You design a spacecraft to land on Mars or you dont.

"BEO" is literally no place in particular ( except any earth orbit ), for which you cant really honestly design for.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/06/2014 08:55 pm
Orion is optimized for BEO. ..
I would like to point out that this often repeated statement is next to useless and carries almost no information. What is BEO ? Orbit of Europa ? Venusian surface ?
In reality, spacecraft get designed for specific destinations and environments they go to for so many reasons. You either design a spacecraft to go to lunar surface or you dont. You design a spacecraft to land on Mars or you dont.

"BEO" is literally no place in particular ( except any earth orbit ), for which you cant really honestly design for.

BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: savuporo on 12/06/2014 08:57 pm
BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.
Call it that, then.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2014 09:30 pm

BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

Not true, especially the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2014 09:40 pm
"BEO" is literally no place in particular ( except any earth orbit ), for which you cant really honestly design for.
BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

The Moon orbits the Earth, so that's not really "Beyond Earth Orbit", right?  Even the Earth-Moon Lagrange points are still part of the Earth-Moon system, so a vehicle would need to go beyond the influence of Earth's gravity to really be BEO - and 21 days is not enough time to do that.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/06/2014 09:55 pm
"BEO" is literally no place in particular ( except any earth orbit ), for which you cant really honestly design for.
BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

The Moon orbits the Earth, so that's not really "Beyond Earth Orbit", right?  Even the Earth-Moon Lagrange points are still part of the Earth-Moon system, so a vehicle would need to go beyond the influence of Earth's gravity to really be BEO - and 21 days is not enough time to do that.

Agreed that lunar orbit and Earth-Moon Lagrange points are still in Earth orbit, and all operations to get between those points are likely to still be in Earth orbit.  Technically, though, if you go fast enough you can be out of Earth orbit no matter how close to the planet you are.  Orion could be accelerated to a high enough speed it would have escape velocity, then accelerated back the other way to come home, all in much less than 21 days.

That would be pointless, of course, and there's no practical reason for an under-21-day BEO mission, but it is technically possible.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/06/2014 09:57 pm
...so a vehicle would need to go beyond the influence of Earth's gravity to really be BEO

I'm pretty sure you have to be in a different universe altogether in order to not to be influenced by Earth's gravity.

Quote
and 21 days is not enough time to do that.

The requirement is a crew of 4 for 21 days. Pretty sure you can break out the life support capability in different ways: 3 crew for 28 days, 2 crew for 42 days, 1 crew for 84 days. 21 days is the absolute minimum to meet basic requirements, not a ceiling either. Beyond that, endurance is a function of the consumeables provided by the service module more than the capsule itself.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/06/2014 10:18 pm
This article describes lunar missions in which the SLS takes the Orion to EML-2.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/boeing-discusses-sls-robust-lunar-program (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/boeing-discusses-sls-robust-lunar-program)

If the argument is that lunar missions are only BLEO rather than BEO then take it up with NASA's public relations people.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/07/2014 12:17 am
Orion is optimized for BEO. ..
I would like to point out that this often repeated statement is next to useless and carries almost no information. What is BEO ? Orbit of Europa ? Venusian surface ?
In reality, spacecraft get designed for specific destinations and environments they go to for so many reasons. You either design a spacecraft to go to lunar surface or you dont. You design a spacecraft to land on Mars or you dont.

"BEO" is literally no place in particular ( except any earth orbit ), for which you cant really honestly design for.

Well if you want to be technical lunar orbit and missions to EML points are BLEO. Of course Orion is planned to go beyond the moon and Earth orbit so my comment is still correct.

BLEO and BEO are different operating environments than LEO. In LEO you have the Earth's magnetic field and the Earth itself blocking a ton of the radiation. There is the speed of return and time of return factors as well. Orion can fly cis-lunar missions by itself but is also being designed to be the command module for BEO missions. The basic plan to use Orion as a command module and then stick a hab module on for long duration flights is sound.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/07/2014 02:14 am
The basic plan to use Orion as a command module and then stick a hab module on for long duration flights is sound.

I disagree with you there.  That's the old one-shot Apollo-style thinking.  I think it makes more sense to have a spaceship that stays in space and is optimized for getting around in space and a different vehicle that is optimized to shuttle people and supplies between that ship and the surface of the Earth.

That hab you're talking about for long duration flights needs to be reusable for more than one mission if we're ever to get the costs down and space travel more routine.  If it's staying in space, it's nuts to take the control module down to Earth whenever you take your passengers back there.

Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/07/2014 03:14 am
If it's staying in space, it's nuts to take the control module down to Earth whenever you take your passengers back there.

Especially if not all the passengers are coming down at once.  The ones left up in the hab might really want to keep their computers, long range comm gear, and so on up there with them while they act as caretakers until the next up-bound trip.  Multiple specialized modules that can be combined in different ways to meet the needs of a particular mission provides greater flexibility at lower cost.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: savuporo on 12/07/2014 03:37 am
Can we just agree that it would be silly to call Voyagers and Messenger "BLEO spacecraft" ? Also, neither of the spacecraft designs could have gone where the other went.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: enkarha on 12/07/2014 08:29 am

BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

Not true, especially the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

Alright, I gotta ask- what is Orion optimized for if not lunar orbit? And while EML's are not exactly its initially intended destination, they are not outside the craft's comfort zone.

Or are you just contesting that use of BEO? Now I'm wondering, did the Apollo astronauts never leave earth orbit? Or even better: when they landed, were they even "closer" to being in an Earth orbit than when they were in lunar orbit?

BEO & BLEO is certainly silly terminology though. Orion is for the high dV, low time span missions. That means anything between HEO and lunar DROs. If you're going out of that zone there's not much point taking it along. But that zone is useful for many things.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/07/2014 01:41 pm

BEO for Orion is lunar orbit and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

Not true, especially the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

Alright, I gotta ask- what is Orion optimized for if not lunar orbit? And while EML's are not exactly its initially intended destination, they are not outside the craft's comfort zone.

Or are you just contesting that use of BEO? Now I'm wondering, did the Apollo astronauts never leave earth orbit? Or even better: when they landed, were they even "closer" to being in an Earth orbit than when they were in lunar orbit?

BEO & BLEO is certainly silly terminology though. Orion is for the high dV, low time span missions. That means anything between HEO and lunar DROs. If you're going out of that zone there's not much point taking it along. But that zone is useful for many things.

IIRC, TLI is mostly done by the Altair lander. But there is no Altair lander currently.
Darn, Not correct. See M129K's posting in the next post.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: M129K on 12/07/2014 01:46 pm

IIRC, TLI is mostly done by the Altair lander. But there is no Altair lander currently.
TLI was to be performed by the EDS, LOI by Altair. Both tasks can be performed by the Exploration Upper Stage on Block 1B.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: notsorandom on 12/08/2014 01:04 pm
The asteroid mission has never made a lot of sense to me. By the mid 20's I expect PRI and DSI to be actively mining, or they will have failed. Further, Hayabusa 2 will get a lot more science accomplished, I expect, since it's staying at a C type asteroid for 18 months..

I doubt either PRI or DSI will be mining asteroids by then. They may have sent a small sample return mission by then, but getting to the point where they're ready for mining is a nontrivial project.

The thing most people seem to miss about this is that we'll be bringing back an asteroid or boulder that masses 90-500 tonnes. Sure, Orion will visit it once and bring back some samples, but most of that mass will still be there, now easily reachable by future NASA or commercial missions that want to study ISRU and other things. It'll be in a stable orbit that will last hundreds or thousands of years without any stationkeeping. It's a small new moon, but a new moon nonetheless. I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool Moon Firster, but still am intrigued by this mission, since I think it could make asteroid ISRU a much nearer term possibility.

You wouldn't get that with a robotic small sample return mission like Hayabusa 2 or anything PRI or DSI will be doing soon.

You wouldn't get that by visiting a NEO "free range" for a couple of weeks out in heliocentric orbit.

You wouldn't get that by a trip to a small asteroid that drifts through earth-moon space.

If you care about asteroid ISRU, this could be a really big deal (if done right--always got to throw in that caveat).
I could be wrong but I don't think PRI or DSI have chosen to lasso asteroids into the Earth-Moon system as part of their strategy. Unless they have changed it since I last looked PRI's first two stages are to launch prospecting satellites with telescopes into various orbits around Earth, then to launch probes to visit the NEOs they find.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jgoldader on 12/08/2014 05:00 pm
I could be wrong but I don't think PRI or DSI have chosen to lasso asteroids into the Earth-Moon system as part of their strategy. Unless they have changed it since I last looked PRI's first two stages are to launch prospecting satellites with telescopes into various orbits around Earth, then to launch probes to visit the NEOs they find.

Unless NASA forbids it, there'd be nothing preventing PRI from sending an ISRU package to the bagged NEO in lunar orbit.  Of course, it would have to cut through the bag.

Now, if you're talking about sending the ISRU package along with Orion, and having the astros bolt the thing onto the asteroid, we're actually getting something interesting going.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jongoff on 12/09/2014 06:13 am
I could be wrong but I don't think PRI or DSI have chosen to lasso asteroids into the Earth-Moon system as part of their strategy. Unless they have changed it since I last looked PRI's first two stages are to launch prospecting satellites with telescopes into various orbits around Earth, then to launch probes to visit the NEOs they find.

If you look at DSI's website, some of the art clearly shows spacecraft moving asteroids. And IIRC, several PRI personnel were involved in the Keck study that came up with the bag an asteroid concept in the first place.

If I were a small, modestly capitalized startup interested in asteroid mining, I'd start out with asteroid finding telescopes and low-cost mass-produceable probes to better scout out targets first. But when I had found some interesting targets, I would do some variant on bringing materials home to experiment on. Neither of them have the funding to attempt even a cost-optimized variant of ARM right from the start, but that doesn't mean that they're opposed or think the general idea is stupid.

~Jon
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 12/09/2014 11:14 am
Or are you just contesting that use of BEO? Now I'm wondering, did the Apollo astronauts never leave earth orbit?

The Moon orbits the Earth. By definition, that's "Earth Orbit", not "Beyond Earth Orbit".

Anything that lands on the Moon, or orbits the Moon, is by the same definition *also* in Earth orbit. It's quite possible to orbit both - an orbit around the Moon looks like some weird spiral from the POV of the Earth.

That's why we use the phrase "Beyond *Low* Earth Orbit" (BLEO) for this.

Apollo was never BEO.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: enkarha on 12/09/2014 05:09 pm
I don't disagree. It just seems a strange thing to say, because from that point of view, no spacecraft has ever, for example, entered solar orbit. The body of reference, I think, could also be usefully defined as the one you're in the sphere of influence of. Of course it's all just semantics.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: savuporo on 12/09/2014 05:40 pm
That's why we use the phrase "Beyond *Low* Earth Orbit" (BLEO) for this.

Apollo was never BEO.
AFAIK LRO or Chang'e-2 have never been called a BLEO craft, both were pretty universally called lunar orbiters.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/09/2014 05:52 pm
The point I think Jim was making is that Mars is Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) so a Mars Transfer Vehicle has to be a BEO spacecraft.
Orion like Apollo can take people to lunar orbit but not to Mars orbit.  So Orion is only a Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) spacecraft, it is not a BEO spacecraft.
NASA will have to build a different spacecraft to go to Mars.

We are just not talking semantics but very very large sums of money.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 12/09/2014 06:13 pm


I don't disagree. It just seems a strange thing to say, because from that point of view, no spacecraft has ever, for example, entered solar orbit. The body of reference, I think, could also be usefully defined as the one you're in the sphere of influence of. Of course it's all just semantics.

If an object reaches Earth's escape velocity, then it is no longer in orbit around the Earth.

The object will still feel the pull of the Earth, but this will be insufficient to pull it back.

This is the point where the object has a C3 energy of 0 km^2/S^2.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 12/09/2014 06:22 pm


That's why we use the phrase "Beyond *Low* Earth Orbit" (BLEO) for this.

Apollo was never BEO.
AFAIK LRO or Chang'e-2 have never been called a BLEO craft, both were pretty universally called lunar orbiters.

I am a mammal, but rarely referred to as such. It's much more useful to refer to me as Human, and this is understood as included in the broader group mammal.

Similarly, a Lunar orbit is one of the set of things which constitute BLEO, as are MEO, HEO, GTO, GSO, EML, ESL, etc. And BEO (escaped).

(ESL 3, 4 & 5 may be stretching a point, but I believe technically do meet the strict definition.)

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2014 06:35 pm
The point I think Jim was making is that Mars is Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) so a Mars Transfer Vehicle has to be a BEO spacecraft.


No, the point I was making is that Orion is not designed for the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Proponent on 12/09/2014 06:58 pm
Orion is designed for a lunar-landing mission using the 1.5-launch Constellation architecture, where the lander performs LOI.  Would its design differ much if it were intended to fly to and from L-points?  Seems to me it wouldn't: it's got about the right delta-V and duration.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/09/2014 09:49 pm
The point I think Jim was making is that Mars is Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) so a Mars Transfer Vehicle has to be a BEO spacecraft.


No, the point I was making is that Orion is not designed for the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

You are going to have to give a reason for Orion being unsuitable for the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.  The delta-v to the points is less than the delta-v to Low Lunar Orbit.  The Orion ECLSS lasts 21 days which is more than twice the 8 days a trip to EML-2 takes.

Ref:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1337.90 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1337.90)
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 12/10/2014 01:18 am

You are going to have to give a reason for Orion being unsuitable for the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.  The delta-v to the points is less than the delta-v to Low Lunar Orbit.  The Orion ECLSS lasts 21 days which is more than twice the 8 days a trip to EML-2 takes.


Quite the opposite, you have to prove that it is suitable and you have yet to do it.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: enkarha on 12/10/2014 01:28 am
Quite the opposite, you have to prove that it is suitable and you have yet to do it.
No, the point I was making is that Orion is not designed for the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.
LockMart certainly aren't saying that with documents like this (pdf):
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/orion/LMFarsideWhitepaperFinal.pdf (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/orion/LMFarsideWhitepaperFinal.pdf)
Gerst's talked about thistoo, and Boeing's proposed L-point gateways since 2006, and never have I heard mentioned any incapability that Orion might have in its ability to get to and stay at and return from an L-point.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/10/2014 02:14 am
Quite the opposite, you have to prove that it is suitable and you have yet to do it.
No, the point I was making is that Orion is not designed for the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.
LockMart certainly aren't saying that with documents like this (pdf):
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/orion/LMFarsideWhitepaperFinal.pdf (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/orion/LMFarsideWhitepaperFinal.pdf)
Gerst's talked about thistoo, and Boeing's proposed L-point gateways since 2006, and never have I heard mentioned any incapability that Orion might have in its ability to get to and stay at and return from an L-point.

Here is another paper that shows Orion is perfect viable for EMLP missions.

http://www.spacepropulsion.org/uploads/2/5/3/9/25392309/spaceaccess2014-25.pdf
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: redliox on 12/13/2014 09:14 am

Here is another paper that shows Orion is perfect viable for EMLP missions.

http://www.spacepropulsion.org/uploads/2/5/3/9/25392309/spaceaccess2014-25.pdf

That paper definitely shows SLS 1b, if not the SLS 1 version, is full of potential.  Regarding Orion, it would be able to visit any of the Lunar LaGrange points along with lunar orbit, so I differ with Jim on that.  However, by visit I mean so long as it's within it's 20-some-day capacity.  For a stay a month or longer augmentation would definitely be needed, and likewise for a hypothetical visit to the Earth-Sun LaGrange points along with Mars and the asteroids.  Cislunar space, or more poetically "The Moon", is literally Orion's limit...solo at least.

What is the total delta-V capacity of Orion, or specifically what ESA is building for its service module?  The math behind that would state Orion's true limit beyond solely life support supplies.  I am very curious to compare what Orion can do with the needs of Mars.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Jim on 12/13/2014 12:49 pm
It is not a question of propulsion.  Where is the documentation that states that Orion is designed for the environment in those locations?
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Tomness on 12/13/2014 02:08 pm
It is not a question of propulsion.  Where is the documentation that states that Orion is designed for the environment in those locations?

Then that statement begs the question of why are we building SLS/Orion if its not going deep space missions. I understand no money for those missions so its not built for it. People want steak (Constellation Ares V/ Orion - Saturn V) and they will have Romen Noodles (SLS/Orion) if at all.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: savuporo on 12/13/2014 04:22 pm
It is not a question of propulsion.  Where is the documentation that states that Orion is designed for the environment in those locations?

Then that statement begs the question of why are we building SLS/Orion if its not going deep space missions.
There are all sorts of different kinds of "deep space". Messenger needed a specialized radiator design to protect it in intense solar flux, Juno needs a specific radiation protection design for Jupiter orbit. Solar arrays and radiators need to be sized differently for spacecraft orbiting Venus and Mars. Communication and navigation subsystems for different deep space destinations are necessarily different.
The idea that you can take one spacecraft and send it everywhere in solar system is not realistic.

Common buses, subsystems can be shared in some cases, but for a new destination you are still redesigning a different spacecraft.
In specific case, i'm pretty sure lunar orbit environment and EML points are similar enough environments that spacecraft don't need different configurations and Orion would be able to transfer between those just fine, just as other spacecraft have done before it.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/13/2014 07:09 pm
The Orion has been redesigned so many times that the high level requirements of the current design probably have not been published.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/13/2014 07:53 pm


Then that statement begs the question of why are we building SLS/Orion if its not going deep space missions. I understand no money for those missions so its not built for it. People want steak (Constellation Ares V/ Orion - Saturn V) and they will have Romen Noodles (SLS/Orion) if at all.

I am no expert but I suspect the problems are as follows:

1.   The gravitational field at the L points is a bit different from either lunar orbit or LEO. New techniques for docking may have to be developed.

2.   Assuming  4 days to the L point and 4 days back that leaves only about 13 days it could spend there. Not much time. It would require an space station to get any long term mission(and none are currently being built) . And this assumes they didn’t cut back to help Orion meet it’s weight.

3.   The radiation shielding maybe too thin for any long term mission and I suspect way too thin to deal with a solar flare and not have to leave. It maybe good enough for travel to the moon, maybe some defense while you turn around and head back home due to flare but not good enough by itself.  Apollo’s plan for solar flare was to abandon mission. The longer the mission the more risk for solar flare.


4.   If you pre-place a lander at the L points you have to factor in how long it is going to take to get to and from the moon. Granted it in theory should have the ability to last 6 months without an crew but again that could be compromised for weight reasons. An lander would have to be built even lighter than the capsule which could making caring enough shielding for a long term mission an problem and an danger should the crew be on the moon when an solar flare hits(it won’t be able to get back to the capsule as fast as Apollo. ). Plans that use a slightly modified lunar lander as a temporary moon base may be a bit unrealistic or much too expensive to engineer. An long term lunar mission might need something more substantial for habitation.

The trouble is the term deep space is kinda nebulous. An 6 month ability to stay in space won't get you to mars. Maybe an asteroid mission or lunar one.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: jgoldader on 12/14/2014 01:04 pm
Just venting here...

Orion is a transport, from Earth to space and back.  It's not like the shuttle, which could carry along "stuff to do in space" in the cargo bay.  Without extra elements like hab modules (undesigned and unfunded) or deep space stations/outposts (undesigned and unfunded)  Orion is severely limited in what it can do.  The asteroid mission is make-work, the most exploration the thing can do, and it needs the help of the robotic part (undesigned and unfunded) to do even that.

I remember when there was going to be the space tug to work with the shuttle to move satellites from their original orbits down to the shuttle's LEO for repair and such.  Shuttle did fine without it, but it was an important piece of enabling technology that never happened.  The difference between shuttle and Orion is that shuttle had a cargo bay and could bring up stuff to do, and so was very successful without the space tug; and Orion cannot do much without the missing supporting hardware.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 12/14/2014 08:39 pm
It is not a question of propulsion.  Where is the documentation that states that Orion is designed for the environment in those locations?

It's listed in the Design Reference Missions.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sdsds on 12/15/2014 04:43 am
It is not a question of propulsion.  Where is the documentation that states that Orion is designed for the environment in those locations?

It's listed in the Design Reference Missions.

I think it is merely a matter of nomenclature. Orion was not designed for lunar Lagrange or DRO missions. For MPCV this ability was a requirement. Then NASA chose Orion as the basis MPCV....
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: MP99 on 12/15/2014 06:46 am


It is not a question of propulsion.  Where is the documentation that states that Orion is designed for the environment in those locations?

It's listed in the Design Reference Missions.

I think it is merely a matter of nomenclature. Orion was not designed for lunar Lagrange or DRO missions. For MPCV this ability was a requirement. Then NASA chose Orion as the basis MPCV....

There has been several years of development of MPCV since then.

I'd be interested to understand any substantial difference between the environmental requirements of DRO (which is in MPCV's early manifest) and EML.

The only thing that occurs to me is eclipse / LOS at EML2. TBH, I didn't think this was such an issue with spacecraft travelling in a halo orbit around the point itself.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: sunbingfa on 12/15/2014 07:37 pm
I think no doubt we are all extremely disappointed to hear delay after delay.
But just ask the question: what other options does NASA have for human spaceflight?
Certainly not focus on LEO.
Moon base? Maybe, but what can we really learn from that? because go to Mars, we can only carry much less resource than what is possible to put on the moon, and landing is also different.
 
We still don't have the capability/spacecraft to live in deep space for 1-2 years, we still don't know how to get to mars with significant amount of payload.

While this ARM seems strange (why not directly to a near earth asteroid?), it still helps to develop some technologies such as more powerful deep space propulsion, which can cut the time of the trip to Mars.

And more practically, NASA has to find something to do with SLS and Orion between now and when we are ready to Mars. Otherwise, basically we are waiting for Spacex to make the MCT functional.........
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/17/2014 02:59 pm
NASA will host a media teleconference at 4 p.m. EST today during which agency officials will discuss and answer questions on the selection of an Asteroid Redirect Mission concept.

The mission is to retrieve an asteroid mass and redirect it into lunar orbit, where astronauts will explore it in the 2020s. The mission will test a number of new capabilities needed for future human deep space expeditions, including to Mars.

Participants for the media teleconference are:

    Robert Lightfoot, NASA associate administrator
    Michele Gates, program director, NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission
    Lindley Johnson, program executive, NASA’s Near Earth Object Program


Audio of the media teleconference will stream live on NASA's website at:

http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: enkarha on 12/17/2014 08:40 pm
Updates from the conference:

Trent Perotto opens, hands it over to Assoc. Administrator Robert Lightfoot.

Meeting occurred yesterday, lots of information reviewed. Progress on both concepts reviewed through the risk reduction over the past few months. A decision was not made, some additional clarification was needed on some things. Apparently it's very close, and there are more commonalities than differences. A decision will take place beginning of next year- in "2 or 3 weeks" time. The mission concept review will occur near the end of February, and a launch date should be more solid at that time. The possible vehicles are Delta IV-H, Falcon Heavy, and SLS.

Option B is more complex, but demonstrates more extensible technologies, which are the main factors in decision.

Their funding from the Omnibus is fine to continue on the project.

Other notes: NASA needs to update their music selection. That was a very long elevator ride.
Title: Re: Orion’s crewed asteroid mission unlikely to occur prior to 2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/17/2014 08:49 pm
Thanks!

And oh, Jon and others actually did a live thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36363.0