Author Topic: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission  (Read 42374 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Another ESD Con Ops (L2) based article. This time it's Marshall Murphy which his second article for the site. What you see is what he wrote. Hardly any subediting required - very talented young man, as it normally take a lot of articles to get to the point you don't need a lot of subediting - myself included:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/nasa-evaluate-yearlong-asteroid-mission/


Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Another ESD Con Ops (L2) based article. This time it's Marshall Murphy which his second article for the site. What you see is what he wrote. Hardly any subediting required - very talented young man, as it normally take a lot of articles to get to the point you don't need a lot of subediting - myself included:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/nasa-evaluate-yearlong-asteroid-mission/
Interesting that they are naming an asteroid as a target. That would potentially mean they have a launch year picked out for the mission right? Will the full up SLS with advanced boosters and 5 SSME's be needed for this mission or will the Block 1 A/B be able to do both launches?

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 232
Really well put together article - a little bit disappointed that the SSEV will not be used but I guess it's to expensive and/or heavy while the REM looks like a good alternative.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Great article! Thank you Marshall Murphy!

However, Congress doesn't seem at all interested in an extremely long, costly, and risky asteroid mission in an unhealthy GCR rich environment.

Also, President Obama's pro asteroid leadership of NASA only lasts until early 2017 and then international Lunar ISRU missions will most likely become NASA's main focus for beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • I don't know what to put here.
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 256

Also, President Obama's pro asteroid leadership of NASA only lasts until early 2017 and then international Lunar ISRU missions will most likely become NASA's main focus for beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight.

I have no idea why you care so much about lunar ISRU missions.


Interesting that they are naming an asteroid as a target. That would potentially mean they have a launch year picked out for the mission right? Will the full up SLS with advanced boosters and 5 SSME's be needed for this mission or will the Block 1 A/B be able to do both launches?

Block 1A is capable of doing it easily. Block 1B's added payload might allow asteroids further away than Block 1A, but it's not necessary. Also, since Block 1's real payload is closer to 90 metric tons, I think it might be capable of doing the mission described, but that will depend on the mass of the CPS used.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
A Block 1A/B is base lined as it needs the CPS. No 5th core engine needed and I doubt we will ever see it.

Keep in mind the RS-25D is no longer a SSME. New controllers (from J-2X) and up-rate to over 500,000 lbs/thrust.


Another ESD Con Ops (L2) based article. This time it's Marshall Murphy which his second article for the site. What you see is what he wrote. Hardly any subediting required - very talented young man, as it normally take a lot of articles to get to the point you don't need a lot of subediting - myself included:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/nasa-evaluate-yearlong-asteroid-mission/
Interesting that they are naming an asteroid as a target. That would potentially mean they have a launch year picked out for the mission right? Will the full up SLS with advanced boosters and 5 SSME's be needed for this mission or will the Block 1 A/B be able to do both launches?
« Last Edit: 09/10/2013 05:01 PM by newpylong »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 33
If SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • I don't know what to put here.
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 256
If SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?

DUUS, which has recently been renamed to Exploration Upper Stage, should be sufficient and is probably even better.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2920
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 85
If SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?

DUUS, which has recently been renamed to Exploration Upper Stage, should be sufficient and is probably even better.

DUUS dosen't carry enough prop. It would need a lot larger tank about 30mt of prop larger tank or twice its current load. So by the time you do this to DUUD you have almost a new vehicle anyway even if it shares a lot of hardware with DUUS such as engines.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • I don't know what to put here.
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 256
If SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?

DUUS, which has recently been renamed to Exploration Upper Stage, should be sufficient and is probably even better.

DUUS dosen't carry enough prop. It would need a lot larger tank about 30mt of prop larger tank or twice its current load. So by the time you do this to DUUD you have almost a new vehicle anyway even if it shares a lot of hardware with DUUS such as engines.

Are you sure you're talking about the same DUUS as I am? You seem to be confusing it with DCSS.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #10 on: 09/10/2013 11:51 PM »

Also, President Obama's pro asteroid leadership of NASA only lasts until early 2017 and then international Lunar ISRU missions will most likely become NASA's main focus for beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight.

I have no idea why you care so much about lunar ISRU missions.
....


Potential to reduce risks and costs. Develop cislunar space.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #11 on: 09/11/2013 02:26 PM »
I am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26611
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6485
  • Likes Given: 4703
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #12 on: 09/11/2013 04:08 PM »
I am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.
The primary problem is lack of funds, not lack of mass. Why do people always get this reversed?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #13 on: 09/11/2013 06:17 PM »
I am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.
The primary problem is lack of funds, not lack of mass. Why do people always get this reversed?

Did you mean to respond to me?

I don't care if it costs $1 or 100 Billion - my reply was in regards to the technical merits of the CPS vs DUUS/EUS.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 06:22 PM by newpylong »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26611
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6485
  • Likes Given: 4703
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #14 on: 09/11/2013 07:59 PM »
I am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.
The primary problem is lack of funds, not lack of mass. Why do people always get this reversed?

Did you mean to respond to me?

I don't care if it costs $1 or 100 Billion - my reply was in regards to the technical merits of the CPS vs DUUS/EUS.
I believe I did misread your post.

This is what I meant: I'd rather them launch SLS with the inferior upper stage than have the rocket and the payload sit on the ground because they're still developing the better upper stage. There simply isn't this kind of funds to enable everything to be perfect. "Better is the enemy of the good."
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #15 on: 09/11/2013 08:28 PM »
I think most people agree with that. We will be lucky to see the 2017 launch as-is money wise.

Though the contract as far as I know for the iCPS is only for 2 units (and 1 Test Article?) I wouldn't be surprised to see that extended down the road if the iCPS can successfully achieve mission criteria. I believe SLS-3 cargo (if approved) is base lined also with a Block 1?

Funding aside, I don't think it hurts to discuss the possibility of the CPS/EUS for the Deep Space Asteroid Mission since clearly the vehicle is base lined for such.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 08:31 PM by newpylong »

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #16 on: 09/12/2013 10:04 AM »
The article mentions
*202 days to reach the asteroid,
*14 day exploration period
*153 days to return to earth.

Those seem like hugely long travel times for a short exploration to me. How does this compare in risk and cost to a Phobos/Deimos mission?

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3675
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 1236
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #17 on: 09/12/2013 10:10 AM »
Phobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26611
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6485
  • Likes Given: 4703
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #18 on: 09/12/2013 04:11 PM »
Phobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!
Patience, grasshopper! We'll need to do some envelope expansion before we go for the 500-900 day Phobos/Deimos missions. But we'll get there.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Online butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission
« Reply #19 on: 09/12/2013 04:23 PM »
So this DRM is essentially moot if it is true that the DSH has just been cancelled?

Tags: