Author Topic: Cygnus Beyond Low-Earth Orbit Logistics and Habitation in Cis-Lunar Space  (Read 8978 times)

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 677
Thanks for posting the links! Highlights:

Orbital Sciences feels that Cygnus can be evolved to an Exploration Augmentation Module (EAM)
Cygnus EAM would be a modification of the existing module currently in production
 Supply chain already established
 Non-recurring engineering completed

Among other interesting options, Walz's presentation shows a super long 4-segment configuration, and a side hatch configuration.

As regards the side hatch, the presentation makes no mention of its potential for making Cygnus usable as an airlock. Yet that seems like an "obvious" way to extend the capabilities of e.g. a docked Orion.
-- sdsds --

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7492
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3286
  • Likes Given: 956
Quote from: Orbital Sciences
...berthed to Orion.
Orbital would do well by correctly distinguishing between berthing and docking.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
I wonder what launch vehicle would be needed to place the Cygnus EAM in LLO/L1/L2. Something significantly larger than Antares would be needed. A Delta IV-Heavy or FH?
« Last Edit: 04/22/2014 07:03 AM by Lars_J »

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2119
  • Likes Given: 2531
This seems like kind of a long shot for Orbital given that NASA doesn't even have any concrete plans for a mission that could use such a BEO logistics platform.  Maybe they just want to plant the idea in case the political winds change and funding somehow appears for extended BEO missions.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Quote from: Orbital Sciences
...berthed to Orion.
Orbital would do well by correctly distinguishing between berthing and docking.

I believe the Orion was "docked" to some sort of node module that had another larger module (hab ??) at the other end. The Cygnus was located at the end of a RMS system, so I assume that means it still "Berths".

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1324
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 282
The long-term habitat mission designs from Marshall including the 500 day Mars hab and the L2-based habs (ISS modular and SLS derived) all use the enhanced version of the Cygnus  spacecraft for logistical supply. The idea that modifications to the Cygnus shell could be used for berthing (and docking?) is a great addition although I have not seen them in the reference designs.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 4478
I wonder what launch vehicle would be needed to place the Cygnus EAM in LLO/L1/L2. Something significantly larger than Antares would be needed. A Delta IV-Heavy or FH?
TLI is about C3 -1.8, and I understand that GSO requires more energy. The new Delta IV Heavy can do 6.75tonnes to GSO. Thus, it could launch a Cygnus into EML1/2. Of course a FH might be cheaper, if their performance figures ever materialize. I guess such a mission would cost 250M to 300M or so if ULA doesn't have to pay the per core fee to Boeing. If they made it an yearly mission, I'm pretty sure they could get a very good price.
But the base of this is that the current Cygnus use the same subsystems as the ISS modules, i.e. long life ones. But for CRS-2 Thales Alenia had proposed to simplify it to a true disposable module and thus reduce costs. So this capability is only going to be available for the next couple of years at most, unless someone is willing to pay to keep the capability going.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2014 02:34 PM by baldusi »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
I wonder what launch vehicle would be needed to place the Cygnus EAM in LLO/L1/L2. Something significantly larger than Antares would be needed. A Delta IV-Heavy or FH?

Yoda speak  on:
Size matters not...
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p5uwr8gcebb/?archiveOffset=1620000

Good thread Manboy  ;)

First thought that came to my mind is the much needed Node 4.

This might be a cheap way to upgrade the station.....put your thinking caps on.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1324
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 282
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p5uwr8gcebb/?archiveOffset=1620000

Good thread Manboy  ;)

First thought that came to my mind is the much needed Node 4.

This might be a cheap way to upgrade the station.....put your thinking caps on.
If NASA added Node 4 to the ISS for expansion plans, how much cooling and power would it need? and does the ISS have the overhead to handle the expansion?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 459
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p5uwr8gcebb/?archiveOffset=1620000

Good thread Manboy  ;)

First thought that came to my mind is the much needed Node 4.

This might be a cheap way to upgrade the station.....put your thinking caps on.
If NASA added Node 4 to the ISS for expansion plans, how much cooling and power would it need? and does the ISS have the overhead to handle the expansion?

A whole thread about Node 4 (that got locked because it was going in circles).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29693.0

The future of USOS:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/

ISS Q/A thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.0

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 677
The long-term habitat mission designs from Marshall [...] use the enhanced version of the Cygnus spacecraft for logistical supply. The idea that modifications to the Cygnus shell could be used for berthing (and docking?) is a great addition although I have not seen them in the reference designs.

Orbital seems to think docking a Cygnus could be an option; see the attached image showing one outfitted with low-impact docking system hardware.
-- sdsds --

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7492
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3286
  • Likes Given: 956
Quote from: Orbital Sciences
...berthed to Orion.
Orbital would do well by correctly distinguishing between berthing and docking.

I believe the Orion was "docked" to some sort of node module that had another larger module (hab ??) at the other end. The Cygnus was located at the end of a RMS system, so I assume that means it still "Berths".
The text on the image in the first post clearly says "...berthed to Orion". Modules don't berth to Orion, they dock. Berthing to another module that is in between the Cygnus derivative and Orion does not constitute berthing to Orion, but berthing to the in-between module.

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
I wonder what launch vehicle would be needed to place the Cygnus EAM in LLO/L1/L2. Something significantly larger than Antares would be needed. A Delta IV-Heavy or FH?

The Atlas 551 could do it to L1 and L2 with margin.
The estimate in a 2012 AIAA paper for L1/L2 on a 90 day trajectory is 6200 kg for the Atlas 551 and 4700 kg for the Atlas 531. Old Delta IV was about 9200 kg.
The estimate I have for Cygnus enhanced is 5300 kg for the enhanced.
My guess for the super is 6100 to 6300 kg so Atlas 551 is close to L1 or L2.
LLO or high speed to L1/L2 takes more DV 200-500 m/s less then GEO.
Delta IV Heavy is 6300+ KG to GEO so LLO with major margin for the Super.
For  L1/L2 at 90 days super with tons of fuel left.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
The text on the image in the first post clearly says "...berthed to Orion". Modules don't berth to Orion, they dock. Berthing to another module that is in between the Cygnus derivative and Orion does not constitute berthing to Orion, but berthing to the in-between module.

It was Lockheed's picture.

Orion was docked to some sort of connecting node.
Since Cygnus was attached to a robotic arm, I assume it was going to Berth.
Probably to a another port on that same connecting node, not to Orion directly.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Tags: