Author Topic: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration  (Read 88600 times)

Offline montyrmanley

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 9
Why should NASA focus on landing hundreds of people on Mars or colonizing space? NASA is the Lewis and Clark expedition, the initial explorers. The idea that we shouldn't go anywhere in space unless we can colonize it at the same time is incorrect in my view. Let the private sector worry about colonization and let NASA focus on actually reaching the location for the first time.

I agree with everything you said vis-a-vis the cislunar station idea -- in fact, if I had my way, NASA would focus all of their efforts on orbital stations and give up on the idea of planetary bases for the forseeable future. But then I'm an advocate of the O'Neill "cities in space" idea -- I find the idea of going right back down another gravity well after spending eons getting out of this one to be ludcrous. Planets are where you put your mining and resource-gathering robots; space stations are the things you build for people to live in.

I do take issue with the notion that NASA is the "Lewis and Clark" of space exploration, however. Notionally, that should (IMO) be their remit, but in reality NASA has never been that organization, either spiritually or as a matter of organizational purpose. NASA's legacy is a conservative engineering bureaucracy, but gradually the "bureaucracy" part has overwhelmed even the "engineering" part and now NASA mainly exists to perpetuate itself. It exists to employ people, and to distribute federal funds to the districts the various centers operate in. To the extent that NASA can do "space exploration" commensurate with those two higher goals, fine; but when actual space science and exploration conflict with those goals, space exploration is going to lose. Every time. I don't think there was ever a "golden age" of NASA where things were ever any different, really -- NASA was born and bred as such an organization, and to expect anything different from it is actually kind of silly.

NASA's innate risk-aversion and (increasingly) bureaucratic inertia is completely at odds with being the path-breaker for crewed deep space missions. I expect the private sector to quickly outpace the nation-state space programs in the coming decades (we be at the leading edge of that process right now).

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3211
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 2429
Why should NASA focus on landing hundreds of people on Mars or colonizing space? NASA is the Lewis and Clark expedition, the initial explorers. The idea that we shouldn't go anywhere in space unless we can colonize it at the same time is incorrect in my view. Let the private sector worry about colonization and let NASA focus on actually reaching the location for the first time.

I agree with everything you said vis-a-vis the cislunar station idea -- in fact, if I had my way, NASA would focus all of their efforts on orbital stations and give up on the idea of planetary bases for the forseeable future.

I just wanted to highlight this comment, but I'll address it last...

Quote
But then I'm an advocate of the O'Neill "cities in space" idea -- I find the idea of going right back down another gravity well after spending eons getting out of this one to be ludcrous. Planets are where you put your mining and resource-gathering robots; space stations are the things you build for people to live in.

You appear to be assuming that humans can actually live in space - not only survive, but thrive.  And that it will be easily to have the same quality of life and GDP in space that it would on a planet. I'm not sure I agree with that, or at least not until we know that artificial gravity space stations will be a popular thing (and I hope they will be). So I think this is a premature conclusion to make at this point.

Quote
I do take issue with the notion that NASA is the "Lewis and Clark" of space exploration, however. Notionally, that should (IMO) be their remit, but in reality NASA has never been that organization, either spiritually or as a matter of organizational purpose.

My philosophy about NASA is based on remembering that NASA is just one of many government agencies that the U.S. Government uses to solve problems. Which for NASA means addressing problems that require sending hardware and/or humans into space to solve problems in peaceful ways.  But they are still U.S. Government problems, not goals set by those within NASA. That is an important point to remember, that NASA works for the President and is funded by Congress - it does not get to pick what it wants to do.

But what it does well is what the private sector can't or won't do. But once the private sector is able to do something, then it should be questioned whether the U.S. Government should have NASA do that same task.

In that light, it may be appropriate for NASA to be the lead for a deep space habitat, but so far there is no U.S. Government need for doing that. Does it solve a problem with another country, like Apollo did in the Cold War? Does it solve a science problem that is acknowledged to be something needed to be solved by many nations, like the ISS? I'm not sure we have a clear "business case" for a lunar DSH yet. It would be nice to have some clarity on this, but our government seems too busy with many other issues to provide clear direction during this year.

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 19
The Cis lunar base has nothing to do with going to Mars it just gives Orion somewhere to go.

NASA is lost its main mission is to keep various legacy Rocket development centres populated with people. The fact there is a outcome of this process is almost irrelevant.

Imagine a trip to Mars lasting 2-3 years and u don't Evan land, its sad, sort of pathetic. No vision, 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.

The absolute truth is SX and to a lesser extent BO are the only people with a vision for space and are making strides to make it happen. NASA will continue with this waste of time until its cancelled and the congress will look for some other nonsense to keep the jobs in their states.

I see zubrin is in agreement with me http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447644/nasa-lunar-orbit-space-station-terrible-idea.

Although I don't agree with his solution. NASA only roll should be publish destinations and required capabilities in broadest terms, choose best solution and administer contracts. Never going to happen but as NASA is really just a political slush fund.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2017 06:36 AM by corneliussulla »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 229
FISO report on Boeing version of DSG and integrated Lunar and Mars lander programs:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/%7Efiso/telecon/Duggan_8-9-17/

The DSG proposals coming from the commercial sector are incorporating ISS diameter (if not actual hardware) modules for the Cis-Lunar gateway.  This concept is using the MSFC larger diameter module for the Mars Transport facility similar to the Smitherman report - which used ISS heritage modules for the DSG and recommended a 5.2m diameter module for the Mars Transport.  This concept mirrors the MSFC co-manifest plan with the addition of lunar, Phobos and Mars landers explicitly called. Note that the Smitherman MSFC report does not call out landers.

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 54
The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

Without the dead weight of an Orion to drag around, I would think it could be reasonably possible to have a (clearly a slimmed-down -Altair-redux) lander capable of shuttling between the surface and the Gateway Station.

Can't say I'm as impressed with the Martian half of plans, but we'll see.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Online okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5017
  • Likes Given: 1203
The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

I wonder if you could just bring a new descent stage with you for the next mission?  Who knows how it'd berth to the ascent stage, but at least the DSG notionally has a Canadarm.


Just a moment... whats that half-cut out Cargo SLS image?  Enhance!  Is that... my public-side SLS cargo render?   :o
« Last Edit: 08/16/2017 03:00 AM by okan170 »

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • USA
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 9
The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

I wonder if you could just bring a new descent stage with you for the next mission?  Who knows how it'd berth to the ascent stage, but at least the DSG notionally has a Canadarm.


Just a moment... whats that half-cut out Cargo SLS image?  Enhance!  Is that... my public-side SLS cargo render?   :o

Well, if you only bring new descent stages on Orion flights, that doesn't leave much room for expansion or logistics modules (which should take priority for Orion comanifests, given the lack of propulsive capability). If you let the descent stage do its own orbital maneuvering, you could launch it on a much smaller vehicle (DIVH class?), maybe even carry some small cargo externally and use it as a logistics vehicle on the way up. Not clear how fuel would be delivered for the ascender though. Carry it up in extra tanks on descent module deliveries? At that point, might as well just go for direct tank swapping

Boeing's legal department just felt a ripple in the Force

Offline TrevorMonty



The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

I wonder if you could just bring a new descent stage with you for the next mission?  Who knows how it'd berth to the ascent stage, but at least the DSG notionally has a Canadarm.



Beside new descent stage would also need fuel for ascent stage.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 229
A video tour of the Lockheed-Martin DSG habitat module - part 1, part 2 has yet to be published.

https://englishsubtitles.online/videos/exclusive-look-inside-nasa-deep-space-gateway-lockheed-martin-visit-part-1-158166

This mockup looks to be the same module as the previous hab module developed a few years ago, using 8020 extrusions - the LM tour guide says that the NextStep Phase II Module prototype will require 18 months to complete.
« Last Edit: 08/25/2017 04:28 PM by BrightLight »

Offline TrevorMonty

A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 229
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Thanks for the post.  The LM concept is highlighting several issues with using MPLM modules for the gateway - the lack of volume - using the ECLSS on Orion is cost-effective but one of the objectives for the Cis-lunar facility was to develop and validate a closed-loop or near-closed loop ECLSS.  LM states in the brief that it is designed to evolve as time/funding permits - but gives no timeline for such evolution (slide 13).  In addition, LM is proposing their own logistics module as a co-manifest option, competing with ATK-Orbital for logistics.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2910
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1227
  • Likes Given: 84
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Thanks for the post.  The LM concept is highlighting several issues with using MPLM modules for the gateway - the lack of volume - using the ECLSS on Orion is cost-effective but one of the objectives for the Cis-lunar facility was to develop and validate a closed-loop or near-closed loop ECLSS.  LM states in the brief that it is designed to evolve as time/funding permits - but gives no timeline for such evolution (slide 13).  In addition, LM is proposing their own logistics module as a co-manifest option, competing with ATK-Orbital for logistics.
This type of version of DSG would limit visit times at the DSG to about 7 days. The current mission length support for an Orion is 14 days (hopefully I am wrong and it is longer). The other 7 days is eaten by the trip to and from Earth in order to get to the DSG. So the visit times for missions to the DSG would be the max ECLSS allowed time for the Orion minus the trip time ~7 days.

A vist of one to two weeks, even three weeks is not long enough for any significant work (scientific or infrastructure building) to occur. It would support at best an EVA if the DSG had an airlock. Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5057
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 511
Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Why would the lack of an airlock shorten the visit?  Would it be possible to use Orion's crew module as an airlock?

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 229
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Thanks for the post.  The LM concept is highlighting several issues with using MPLM modules for the gateway - the lack of volume - using the ECLSS on Orion is cost-effective but one of the objectives for the Cis-lunar facility was to develop and validate a closed-loop or near-closed loop ECLSS.  LM states in the brief that it is designed to evolve as time/funding permits - but gives no timeline for such evolution (slide 13).  In addition, LM is proposing their own logistics module as a co-manifest option, competing with ATK-Orbital for logistics.
This type of version of DSG would limit visit times at the DSG to about 7 days. The current mission length support for an Orion is 14 days (hopefully I am wrong and it is longer). The other 7 days is eaten by the trip to and from Earth in order to get to the DSG. So the visit times for missions to the DSG would be the max ECLSS allowed time for the Orion minus the trip time ~7 days.

A vist of one to two weeks, even three weeks is not long enough for any significant work (scientific or infrastructure building) to occur. It would support at best an EVA if the DSG had an airlock. Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?
The objectives for the cis-lunar facility posted earlier in this thread (replys 327,332 374) require up to 60 day missions - see * NextSTEP-2_Appendix_A_Habitat_Systems_Final.pdf  at reply 135.  The nextstep site, https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep Aug 2017 briefing for the P&PE module calls out a minimum of 30 days for 4 astronauts.
Also, slide 10 of the brief does show an airlock.
« Last Edit: 08/31/2017 05:12 PM by BrightLight »

Offline TrevorMonty

Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Why would the lack of an airlock shorten the visit?  Would it be possible to use Orion's crew module as an airlock?
Airlock would be 4th trip/module, logistic module being 3rd trip. With logistic module Orion should be able to support  crew for 30 days. Not presented anyway but using a Cygnus as logistic module delivered by commercial LV would allow airlock to be brought forward to 3rd mission.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2910
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1227
  • Likes Given: 84
Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Why would the lack of an airlock shorten the visit?  Would it be possible to use Orion's crew module as an airlock?
Airlock would be 4th trip/module, logistic module being 3rd trip. With logistic module Orion should be able to support  crew for 30 days. Not presented anyway but using a Cygnus as logistic module delivered by commercial LV would allow airlock to be brought forward to 3rd mission.
The unfortunate thing about this is that the reality of this happening feels a lot like us waiting on the the FH to fly. We know it will, but the details keep changing (the FH capabilities, site used, other hardware details changed). The mission plans for anything other than EM-2 are penciled in plans since the hardware programs that would be providing the hardware are only pencil plans and suggestions by contractors to NASA. There is only one item that is currently even being defined through work on a requirements document/RFI(P). So the details about the DSG as it currently exists may be very different than when it is deployed including orbits and even which LV is used to deploy it.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2017 05:53 PM by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline TrevorMonty

I don't think DSG has been officially funded yet or approved by current Administration.

Online okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5017
  • Likes Given: 1203
I don't think DSG has been officially funded yet or approved by current Administration.

According to NASA its being covered under NEXT-Step and ARM contracts for now.

Online Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 151
I don't think DSG has been officially funded yet or approved by current Administration.

According to NASA its being covered under NEXT-Step and ARM contracts for now.
When I talked with some NASA people at the EAA AirVenture in late July, they were confident this will be moving ahead full speed.  They were speaking like this is a given next step.  Time will tell if the National Space Council and Congress agree.  I suspect that they will.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Across the Universe
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 44
Is there any reason that the lander isn't completely reusable? Otherwise, this moon program is going to be slow going with only one SLS launch a year. I'm assuming that the recent requirement to put the Orion on a new launch vehicle is to free up SLS launches for delivering DSG parts?

Can the lunar lander be lofted by anything else?

Tags: