We see the future commercialization of #LEO in re-using and re-purposing spent upper stages of launch vehicles. Here's a new look at #Ixion. Learn more about our #NextSTEP program here: https://t.co/CMXzFUiVyv #SpaceComExpo https://t.co/ueLgehtFg3
And their tweet:QuoteWe see the future commercialization of #LEO in re-using and re-purposing spent upper stages of launch vehicles. Here's a new look at #Ixion. Learn more about our #NextSTEP program here: https://t.co/CMXzFUiVyv #SpaceComExpo https://t.co/ueLgehtFg3https://twitter.com/NanoRacks/status/938439243449368576--- Tony
^This is also the first look at Centaur V, ULA's 5m upper stage for Vulcan.Confirmed by MainEngineCutOff - who recently completed a nanoracks tour.https://twitter.com/WeHaveMECO/status/938440720846872576
That looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/06/2017 11:22 pmThat looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.It’s a modified Centaur V with a CBM node in the intertank. Regular Centaur V looks like it’ll be common bulkhead, but those two sections you see there are the tanks.
Quote from: acolangelo on 12/06/2017 11:23 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 12/06/2017 11:22 pmThat looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.It’s a modified Centaur V with a CBM node in the intertank. Regular Centaur V looks like it’ll be common bulkhead, but those two sections you see there are the tanks.That's possible... But then the drawing must be off scale/proportion quite a bit. (again remember the 5.4m diameter - measure the image) That would be a super massive sized stage, the stack would be far taller than Atlas V. (which would go against them trying to maintain the stage heights to allow a transition without massive infrastructure changes)
- They’re still focusing on keeping the architecture upper stage agnostic, so that what they develop can be used on other vehicles in the future. Some very interesting stages were brought up in the discussion.
SLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose...Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.
Don't think that the crew access goes that high either. So ... dedicated mission with pad, umbilicals, MLP, and VIB mods?Seems quite expensive for "cheap" hab space.add:Quote from: GWH on 12/06/2017 11:42 pmSLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose...Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.There's such a thing as "too big" a space to fill.Remember, it's a "wet" hab - you fit it out from other pressurized volume. Hundreds of Orion capsule volumes, and even with say Cygnus super ultra huge flights ... you'd need dozens of them.Which works against the DSG concept, which is not to be huge like the severely underutilized ISS (limited by operating environment and frequency of visits by crew/cargo), but to be compact to be the smallest of way stations possible - so even the first EUS is overkill.This concept sure does give Bigelow a run for the "ISS backup" and transfer to a commercial non joint operation concept. It does have potentially station keeping and long lived propulsion possibilities, although not with storable props (GOx to supplant ECLSS too). Not passivated fully for those cases. Wonder how those would go over with ASAP?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/07/2017 12:04 amDon't think that the crew access goes that high either. So ... dedicated mission with pad, umbilicals, MLP, and VIB mods?Seems quite expensive for "cheap" hab space.add:Quote from: GWH on 12/06/2017 11:42 pmSLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose...Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.There's such a thing as "too big" a space to fill.Remember, it's a "wet" hab - you fit it out from other pressurized volume. Hundreds of Orion capsule volumes, and even with say Cygnus super ultra huge flights ... you'd need dozens of them.Which works against the DSG concept, which is not to be huge like the severely underutilized ISS (limited by operating environment and frequency of visits by crew/cargo), but to be compact to be the smallest of way stations possible - so even the first EUS is overkill.This concept sure does give Bigelow a run for the "ISS backup" and transfer to a commercial non joint operation concept. It does have potentially station keeping and long lived propulsion possibilities, although not with storable props (GOx to supplant ECLSS too). Not passivated fully for those cases. Wonder how those would go over with ASAP?The current rough idea for DSG seems to involve a lot of docking and assembly over several years even though it is a relatively small station.
Nowhere as much as ISS but pretty significant. It depends what would be worse, lots of spare capacity to fill or docking and assembling multiple modules over years.
I'm curious to know if the same capability as DSG could be achieved rapidly in one or two launches through retrofitting an upperstage that's already going to TLI with Orion.
The Ixion concept even mentions the possiblity of robotic outfitting of the eventual habitat.
Since the DSG is not intended to be permanently inhabited, perhaps this would benefit the speedy construction of such a station between SLS/Orion missions.
Mass limits, not pressurized volume. Which costs in dragging things to Mars. And it can't be paired down. Nor does the integration save you, because a lot of things need to be deployed and are inconsistent with a US environment (power, comm, robotic arm).