Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 05/20/2016 01:49 pmI guess SpaceXWhy are you bringing up SpaceX (twice now, the first time with a veiled reference) in an Orbital ATK thread? How about we attempt to discuss the proposal on its own merits, without throwing in straw men to knock down?
I guess SpaceX
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 05/20/2016 02:24 pmCan we please give the "If it isn't made by SpaceX it shouldn't happen" attitude a rest?And now a third time. To quote someone else, "please give it a rest".
Can we please give the "If it isn't made by SpaceX it shouldn't happen" attitude a rest?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 05/20/2016 02:08 pmGive it a rest you don't need humans in space to test hardware. Just send the hardware...That's why it's called a "hardware test"... Well given how much maintenance ISS requires only giving hab modules unmanned tests before going to Mars might not be the best option. Then of course there is the benefit of the astronauts learning how to maintain said systemx without as much help from Earth.A cis-lunar station can be used to great effect for both lunar exploration and further expeditions BEO (not to mention expanding the commercial space sector beyond LEO).Can we please give the "If it isn't made by SpaceX it shouldn't happen" attitude a rest?
Give it a rest you don't need humans in space to test hardware. Just send the hardware...That's why it's called a "hardware test"...
The only person that mentioned SpaceX is you... Learn something about me before you categorize me pal...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 05/20/2016 03:07 pmThe only person that mentioned SpaceX is you... Learn something about me before you categorize me pal...The last part was meant as a general statement, I wasn't talking about you specifically. I apologize for failing to make that distinction.I let my anger over what is happening in other threads color my view of what is going on in this one. I sincerely apologize for that and apologize for unfairly impugning anyone's motivations.
Getting back on topic:One of the advantages of this proposal is that it is one that can be ready in the near term for not much money. That is sorely needed right now. Since the "deep space" Cygnus already has a prototype in the form of the current Cygnus the construction of a station should take less time vs. starting from scratch with another hab module concept. Even if a "deep space" Cygnus is a preliminary/cargo module vs. the core of a lunar station it still provides a great benefit to cis-lunar exploration efforts. EM-2 will be more exciting with the addition of a destination.
People are forgetting political reality. Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion.
NASA is going to use cislunar space as a proving ground for future Mars missions.
The question isn't whether or not NASA will use Orion in cislunar space because that's a given. The question is whether or not this Orbital ATK proposal is a good one for utilizing Orion.
A cislunar outpost can be equipped with instruments for lunar and solar system observation. Orion missions can be used for repairs and experiment replacement.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 05/20/2016 03:33 pmGetting back on topic:One of the advantages of this proposal is that it is one that can be ready in the near term for not much money. That is sorely needed right now. Since the "deep space" Cygnus already has a prototype in the form of the current Cygnus the construction of a station should take less time vs. starting from scratch with another hab module concept. Even if a "deep space" Cygnus is a preliminary/cargo module vs. the core of a lunar station it still provides a great benefit to cis-lunar exploration efforts. EM-2 will be more exciting with the addition of a destination.I am not sure what "not much money" means. While the Cygnus spacecraft is operational, it is not a stand-alone manned platform it needs man-rated environmental and power sub-systemsFrank DeMauro, Orbital ATK Vice President for Human Spaceflight Systems was quoted in Universe Today and re-quoted inhttp://phys.org/news/2016-05-orbital-atk-man-tended-lunar-orbit-outpost.html;"A variety of supplementary subsystems would also need to be enhanced... We looked at what systems we would need to modify to make it a long term habitation module. Since we would not be docked to the ISS, we would need our own Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) out at lunar orbit to support the crew...The service module would also need to be improved due to the high radiation environment and the longer time...We also need to look at the thermal protection subsystem, radiation protection subsystem and power subsystems to support the vehicle for many years as opposed to the short time spent at the ISS. More power is also needed to support more science. We also need a propulsion system to get to the moon and maintain the vehicle...All that work is getting looked at now – to determine what we need to modify and upgrade and how we would do all that work," All this work won't be cheap, just to get to a ground based prototype will be hundreds of millions, let alone a flight-ready package.
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/20/2016 02:15 pmIt would be helpful to look at the visiting vehicle schedule and see just how often ISS gets a supply ship. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/visiting-vehicle-launches-arrivals-and-departures) Though the station can ride out a halt in deliveries for a few months they still need a pretty steady cadence of resupply to keep that margin and remain operational.The margin can be whatever they want it to be. Extra supplies = more money, and it also means less "freshness" in your supplies. These can all be simulated in LEO by just docking one or more MPLM full of supplies.
It would be helpful to look at the visiting vehicle schedule and see just how often ISS gets a supply ship. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/visiting-vehicle-launches-arrivals-and-departures) Though the station can ride out a halt in deliveries for a few months they still need a pretty steady cadence of resupply to keep that margin and remain operational.
QuoteBeing in LEO the station gets other benefits too like better communications, more benign thermal and radiation environments, and quick return capability for the crew.Communications can be simulated by inserting delays using software - that is pretty cheap and easy.
Being in LEO the station gets other benefits too like better communications, more benign thermal and radiation environments, and quick return capability for the crew.
Yes, thermal and radiation environments are different, but are we at a point where we're ready to test our solutions for long-term voyages? I don't think so, since this cislunar hab will be made from the same designs we're using in LEO, so how is that any different?
As to "quick return capability for the crew", how is being 3-days away in cislunar space supposed to simulate being 100 days away on Mars?
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/20/2016 02:15 pmThe other difficulties deep space presents will still be there. Longer and longer duration flights can be tested in very similar conditions to interplanetary space before having to leave the Earth-Moon system. Once a crew can be kept alive long enough to do a Mars mission in cis-lunar space the same hardware, techniques, and lessons learned will with very minor modification keep a crew alive to Mars and back.Yes, I've advocated for such capabilities, but as of today NASA has ZERO new technology to test beyond LEO. None.
The other difficulties deep space presents will still be there. Longer and longer duration flights can be tested in very similar conditions to interplanetary space before having to leave the Earth-Moon system. Once a crew can be kept alive long enough to do a Mars mission in cis-lunar space the same hardware, techniques, and lessons learned will with very minor modification keep a crew alive to Mars and back.
This Orbital ATK proposal is for aluminum enclosures, which we know are bad for radiation environments. If we are going to go beyond LEO it should be with Bigelow type inflatables, or composite enclosures, since plastic is a much better radiation barrier and doesn't have the secondary radiation effects that aluminum does.
You mean launching two or more resupply missions at the same time, then gradually using those supplies, and setting that up as the ISS resupply scheme for a few years? Yes, you could do that, except for the research returns, and perhaps some trash issues. But realize you are disrupting ISS use as a LEO laboratory...
It's a chicken and egg. Need to do the research, in order to build a solution. But needed to have built something, in order to do the research to get a solution.
It's not necessary for the first module to be perfect. In fact, it might be better to go simple, and then try substituting various shielding options and measure the differences.
Do you want to stop NASA from developing these BLEO ideas, just so you can criticize them for not developing any BLEO hardware?
The ISS is a national research laboratory, specifically to be used for solving the problems related to humans being in space. Yes there are efforts to fill in time with commercial projects, but the goal of the ISS is to solve as many problems as possible before committing to the next effort to expand humanity out into space.So from that standpoint this hab is premature, since so far I haven't heard any cohesive list of technologies or techniques that can only be done on this hab, and have to be done now.
I am EXTREMELY suspect of any plans one faction within one part of our government is pursuing that is not in complete synchronization with the other parts of our government. That means there is something to hide.
So do I support BLEO activities? Sure. Is this activity worth supporting? Not sure.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/20/2016 11:00 pmThe ISS is a national research laboratory, specifically to be used for solving the problems related to humans being in space. Yes there are efforts to fill in time with commercial projects, but the goal of the ISS is to solve as many problems as possible before committing to the next effort to expand humanity out into space.So from that standpoint this hab is premature, since so far I haven't heard any cohesive list of technologies or techniques that can only be done on this hab, and have to be done now.But by current schedules we won't have an ISS anymore when this is proposed to come online for research (2025).
OK. However there is no law that says we have to have a contiguous government presence in space.Let's not do things for artificial reasons.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/20/2016 11:00 pmI am EXTREMELY suspect of any plans one faction within one part of our government is pursuing that is not in complete synchronization with the other parts of our government. That means there is something to hide.No, there's nothing to hide.
That's just how the government works. It's a massive bureaucracy that stumbles along with many duplicate programs.
Perhaps I missed something. The article states,"The initial habitat concept includes pre-positioning a Cygnus-derived module in lunar orbit". How does this evolve to a station at EML-1 or EML-2, or is that implied by the term cislunar?