Quote from: MATTBLAK on 03/31/2017 04:52 amIf they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.Well, if you look at the documents, it is evident that is not how this is planed to play out. The DSH / Gateway stays in lunar orbit, and only the "DST" (Deep Space Transport), a one-piece, 8.4 m diameter space ship equipped with an SEP/chemical propulsion system and ECLSS, makes the actual sorties, first to a "shake down cruise" in cis/translunar space, then on to the orbit of Mars. The mass of DST is about 45 tons. And yes, it seems that the Orion would stay attached to the DSH during that time, and the DST returns to the DSH from Mars orbit.
If they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.
Quote from: Bynaus on 03/31/2017 11:23 amQuote from: MATTBLAK on 03/31/2017 04:52 amIf they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.Well, if you look at the documents, it is evident that is not how this is planed to play out. The DSH / Gateway stays in lunar orbit, and only the "DST" (Deep Space Transport), a one-piece, 8.4 m diameter space ship equipped with an SEP/chemical propulsion system and ECLSS, makes the actual sorties, first to a "shake down cruise" in cis/translunar space, then on to the orbit of Mars. The mass of DST is about 45 tons. And yes, it seems that the Orion would stay attached to the DSH during that time, and the DST returns to the DSH from Mars orbit. There is some minor variance across the DRM's in the different documents. No actual declaration of a definitive mission architecture. But notionals are to be expected at this stage.
I thought the cislunar gateway was supposed to be paid for by ESA/Japan... did I misunderstand the discussion over on the SLS thread? I have trouble seeing ESA and JAXA just handing over €/¥ to US-based companies for a NASA-designed, US-built outpost.
I think you may be misinterpreting what "find best aspects of each" means. This sounds to me more like "Bigelow has the strongest main lab concept, Boeing has the best node design, Lockheed's design is good for blah blah, lets stick compatible ports on these and bolt them all together", rather than "lets build 1 module with life support from Lockheed and electronics from Boeing and whatever". In which case this is exactly how commercial is supposed to work: NASA buys what they need and puts it together into 1 station, and each company can go and sell the same thing to other customers too. Same model used for commercial crew/cargo, and for orbital launch vehicles
Hab Development Phase 2 [...]• NASA: Define reference habitat architecture based on contractor and international concepts and identified GFE [Government Furnished Equipment] in preparation for Phase 3Hab Development Phase 3 [...]• Deliverables include Flight Unit(s) (note may be multiple modules integrated via common interfaces and standards)
As with all these things, it's not whether it can be done, but rather about the cost and how it'll be paid for. So far, we haven't heard a peep about either of those (unless I missed something?).
It would be interesting to see the ITS upper stage against the deep space transport in scale.
Thanks. The DST is an uninspiring looking vessel, but practicality is what's needed I suppose. When u see all the movies and TV dock dramas made in last twenty years about travel to Mars none came up with a bean can in space, but I suppose the craft has no landing stage etc.
I suppose the ones I was referring to where, the Martian, red planet, mission to Mars. TV race to Mars, and Nat geo recent Mars show. However I assume some extra stuff needs to be attached to the NASA bean can to Impart some delta v and to put it in orbit etc.
I wish it was just an optimized transit vehicle made to operate in cislunar mode.I liked the gateway idea when it was just using ISS ground spares, but this is a whole new thing, and so we should just do what we actually want: build something light enough to be a transit vehicle. We'll otherwise spend tens of billions of dollars doing missions and upkeep on a miniature ISS at a higher orbit. Come on, let's at least get to Phobos or something.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 04/12/2017 08:22 amI suppose the ones I was referring to where, the Martian, red planet, mission to Mars. TV race to Mars, and Nat geo recent Mars show. However I assume some extra stuff needs to be attached to the NASA bean can to Impart some delta v and to put it in orbit etc.Considering that all of those films involved a large modular transfer spacecraft that did not itself land, they have a lot more in common with "can designs" than SpaceX's ITS super-lander-spaceship.
The Nat Geo Mars show had a ship that was basically ITS.
The Cis lunar base has nothing to do with going to Mars it just gives Orion somewhere to go.
Imagine a trip to Mars lasting 2-3 years and u don't Evan land, its sad, sort of pathetic.
Evan the things we are building have no obvious purpose other than getting a few people to Mars orbit or lunar orbit so we can say we have been there.