Author Topic: NASA teams evaluating ISS-built Exploration Platform roadmap  (Read 101087 times)


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12963
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3722
  • Likes Given: 634
Updating what we have via L2. Again, planning only - nothing set in stone still.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/nasa-teams-evaluating-iss-built-exploration-platform-roadmap/

But the above would be cool! :)

I'm not thrilled about the "existing launchers" bit.  It's fine to use them, but only if SLS is stopped right now.  Otherwise, what is the monster for?

 - Ed Kyle


Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22351
  • Liked: 640
  • Likes Given: 252
Here is some info on the SEP development

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/09/15/nasa-selects-companies-to-study-solar-electric-propulsion-spacecraft/#more-29549

Quote
NASA has selected five companies to develop concepts for demonstrating solar electric propulsion in space. These capabilities are important for the agency’s future human exploration missions to deep space.

Quote
– Analytical Mechanics Associates Inc., Hampton, Va.
– Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo.
– The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, Calif.
– Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Littleton, Colo.
– Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Redondo Beach, Calif.


I'm not thrilled about the "existing launchers" bit.  It's fine to use them, but only if SLS is stopped right now.  Otherwise, what is the monster for?

 - Ed Kyle


The article states it is for the SEP tug.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2012 04:23 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 132
Updating what we have via L2. Again, planning only - nothing set in stone still.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/nasa-teams-evaluating-iss-built-exploration-platform-roadmap/

But the above would be cool! :)

Excellent article as usual.


Still scratching my head over whether I'll ever see us do anything like this, even BEO for that matter again, besides em-1 in my lifetime. Keeping my fingers crossed but not holding my breath as usual.

3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8197
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 108
The 2010 NASA Authorisation Act probably is not a problem since a new one is due within a couple of years.  This is a good time to start lobbying to add a EML-2 space station.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 132
The 2010 NASA Authorisation Act probably is not a problem since a new one is due within a couple of years.  This is a good time to start lobbying to add a EML-2 space station.

Its also a good time to start praying that we even get to keep a program at all.


The budget cuts that are coming........you have no idea......

Think about your worst case scenario, even based on what we already know.

Now make it 5 times worse. 


One of two thing is going to happen in the next 8 years:

1. Budgets are slashed for federal systems/programs across the board.

Or.

2. Spending continues until repeat defaults occur and/or currency collapses (really really bad day.)

Oh and don't forget about the inflation problem either.


I will be happy if even EM-1 flys, while it would be good to try and lobby for the EML missions, I just don't know if it would yield anything or even hurt the argument for this program overall because "you want more money for space? What about the entitlement programs ect"


Really almost praying for NASA's budget in the future, especially what the post November outcome will be. Because right now I don't see a future.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 39

I'm not thrilled about the "existing launchers" bit.  It's fine to use them, but only if SLS is stopped right now.  Otherwise, what is the monster for?

 - Ed Kyle


The article states it is for the SEP tug.

But documentation about the SEP system (L2) claims that an EELV-launched version can provide more than enough power for this application . . if I'm reading it right. This seems, at least to me, like they're struggling to make up work for SLS.

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Great article, good news!

Offline Longhorn John

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 32

But documentation about the SEP system (L2) claims that an EELV-launched version can provide more than enough power for this application . . if I'm reading it right. This seems, at least to me, like they're struggling to make up work for SLS.

One example and likely not enough. Payload fairing size of SLS will be needed. See SLS-2 2019 reference. See Boeing reference. And SLS is the human rated BEO launcher.

"Make up work for SLS" just sounds like you're armwaving. Bet you'd like Elon to launch SEPs for you, right? :)

A good idea is to read the comments on the ESD Con Ops thread, seen as you are on L2. The comments from the SLS managers are hopeful for this, not against it. If SLS had nothing to do because of this, they wouldn't be saying hopeful things.

And then there's the DAC-2 section showing SLS is changing for the better. Can't say anymore as we're not in L2. ;)
« Last Edit: 06/15/2012 05:14 AM by Longhorn John »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 31
SLS flight 1 in 2017 and flight 2 in 2021?

What might we see from commercial companies delivering a launcher in the range of 100klb to 200klb+ to LEO before the possible first launch of SLS?

As much as I like the idea of an EML1/2 station we need to first finish setting up LEO. Infrastructure in LEO needs to be placed there first to make it easier and cost effective to go BLEO and future space flight.

An EML1/2 station does not need to be rushed into until we have a means for crew to get there. Orion has not even had it's first space test flight yet. By the time it has it's first crewed test flight we would have better technology for the station ( life support ect. ) and know how we would get the station out to EML1/2, SEP or chemical propulsion.

We need a new cost effective way to get new modules and large part to the ISS and future structures in LEO. Such as a human rated US as a space tug.

Large electrical propulsion will most likely be used in future space flight. But I do not see it as a high priority till at least the early 2020's to have it ready for crew exploration Mars and or NEO. I see chemical propulsion for now to get us a station out to EML1/2 plus added components and supplies.

We might end up seeing a device to shade an EDS and refuel it from tankers. The EDS becomes the depot tanks. The depot it power, Sun shade, pumps, docking for and EDS ( tug ) and the cargo it is to take to it's destination.

Online Bubbinski

Very good article and overview Chris. 

Good to see an exploration station/platform planned.

After the 2nd launch of SLS that launches the SEP tug to get the platform to L2, would the main use of SLS beyond that be to launch Orion crews and mission modules/landers to that platform?

One thing that I'd like to see would be to make EM-1 a crewed flight.  STS first flight was crewed.  Couldn't the "human-rating" be done with Orion being tested on Delta launches and perhaps finish out one of the partially built shuttle ET's as a SLS core stage with 5 seg boosters for a suborbital test launch sooner than 2017?
« Last Edit: 06/15/2012 10:29 AM by Bubbinski »
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Excellent article, as usual.

John Fornaro is right, the way the global economy is heading, we are going to be lucky to have manned spaceflight at all unfortunately.

One question: I've being seeing these translucent / mesh panels on this SEP concept and the utility module. What kind of solar panels are these?
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8197
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 108
{snip}
I will be happy if even EM-1 flys, while it would be good to try and lobby for the EML missions, I just don't know if it would yield anything or even hurt the argument for this program overall because "you want more money for space? What about the entitlement programs ect"


Really almost praying for NASA's budget in the future, especially what the post November outcome will be. Because right now I don't see a future.

EML-1/2 and the Moon are closer to the Earth that the asteroids.  This means that a mission to Moon base can be made to look cheaper than a Near Earth Object (NEO) mission.  Changing to a cheaper mission is one way of implementing a budget cut.

The NEO mission spaceship used in the comparison would have had a crew of 20, artificial gravity and thick radiation protection.  I suspect that a report describing a ship with a full set of safety features will turn up.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 132
{snip}
I will be happy if even EM-1 flys, while it would be good to try and lobby for the EML missions, I just don't know if it would yield anything or even hurt the argument for this program overall because "you want more money for space? What about the entitlement programs ect"


Really almost praying for NASA's budget in the future, especially what the post November outcome will be. Because right now I don't see a future.

EML-1/2 and the Moon are closer to the Earth that the asteroids.  This means that a mission to Moon base can be made to look cheaper than a Near Earth Object (NEO) mission.  Changing to a cheaper mission is one way of implementing a budget cut.

The NEO mission spaceship used in the comparison would have had a crew of 20, artificial gravity and thick radiation protection.  I suspect that a report describing a ship with a full set of safety features will turn up.


Yes but not the sort of cut I am describing. I do see your point however.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8197
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 108

Yes but not the sort of cut I am describing. I do see your point however.

I am a lot more optimistic than you are.  Although I do expect an axeman to visit.

Online Chris Bergin

Just a quick drive by to say thanks for the people posting kind words about the article! :) (Because I really do appreciate that).

Offline simonbp

But documentation about the SEP system (L2) claims that an EELV-launched version can provide more than enough power for this application . . if I'm reading it right. This seems, at least to me, like they're struggling to make up work for SLS.

You are reading it right, but that's the situation they're in, due to the Authorization Act.

That said, SLS is only planned for one component, and I wouldn't put it past them to design it in such a way that it could be shifted to Falcon Heavy if necessary.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7039
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 685
Updating what we have via L2. Again, planning only - nothing set in stone still.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/nasa-teams-evaluating-iss-built-exploration-platform-roadmap/

But the above would be cool! :)

I'm not thrilled about the "existing launchers" bit.  It's fine to use them, but only if SLS is stopped right now.  Otherwise, what is the monster for?

It's a scheduling thing; doing it with existing launchers means you can start now and do it more quickly than is possible with the glacially slow SLS launch rate.  This way, the platform is in place at the turn of the decade and SLS can be focussed on what it does that makes it unique (no current or actively in-development commercial vehicle can do this) - launch Orion or mission cargo to EML-1 with a single launch.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
This way, the platform is in place at the turn of the decade and SLS can be focussed on what it does that makes it unique (no current or actively in-development commercial vehicle can do this) - launch Orion or mission cargo to EML-1 with a single launch.

Not to nitpick, but there is actually another LV in development which would be able to launch a tweaked version of a flying cargo craft to EML-1 with a single launch.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27145
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7112
  • Likes Given: 4937
This way, the platform is in place at the turn of the decade and SLS can be focussed on what it does that makes it unique (no current or actively in-development commercial vehicle can do this) - launch Orion or mission cargo to EML-1 with a single launch.

Not to nitpick, but there is actually another LV in development which would be able to launch a tweaked version of a flying cargo craft to EML-1 with a single launch.
Actually, there are several. A Proton may be able to push a modified Progress to EML1. Atlas V  (i.e. 551) and maybe the Delta IV Medium+ should be able to push a Cygnus to EML1. And I'm sure we can think of a few others. Orion is big and heavy compared to most spacecraft, even most manned spacecraft (not that that's /necessarily/ a bad thing).
« Last Edit: 06/15/2012 05:49 PM by Robotbeat »
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