Author Topic: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)  (Read 22347 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6213
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2352
  • Likes Given: 786
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #80 on: 12/09/2017 04:21 AM »
How much work will this take once it reaches orbit, to make it usable?

Less than you would think.

~Jon

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Liked: 4104
  • Likes Given: 5619
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #81 on: 12/09/2017 12:11 PM »
Does the four engine Ixion Wet Station configuration indicate that Centaur V will have four RL-10s?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • California
  • Liked: 3956
  • Likes Given: 2394
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #82 on: 12/09/2017 07:10 PM »
Does the four engine Ixion Wet Station configuration indicate that Centaur V will have four RL-10s?

Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • USA
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #83 on: 12/09/2017 11:31 PM »
Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Presumably they would be the same improved version Aerojet is bidding for ACES (most of the existing stockpile has been burned through or will be by the time Vulcan debuts, and its not clear that the tooling still exists to produce the legacy engines). 3d printing and other manufacturing modernizations helps a lot. Plus more engines produced allows some economy of scale to appear. IMO comparisons to the relatively high cost of legacy RL10 are not relevant given the significant redesign.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2354
  • California
  • Liked: 1896
  • Likes Given: 4431
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #84 on: 12/10/2017 02:03 AM »
Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Presumably they would be the same improved version Aerojet is bidding for ACES (most of the existing stockpile has been burned through or will be by the time Vulcan debuts, and its not clear that the tooling still exists to produce the legacy engines). 3d printing and other manufacturing modernizations helps a lot. Plus more engines produced allows some economy of scale to appear. IMO comparisons to the relatively high cost of legacy RL10 are not relevant given the significant redesign.
What is the expected price of the new design?  I don't doubt that they can be made cheaper than legacy versions.  But until we have some concrete data that they are actually being sold for significantly cheaper, such comparisons are inevitable.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • California
  • Liked: 3956
  • Likes Given: 2394
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #85 on: 12/11/2017 01:04 AM »
Yes, to maintain the same thrust to weight ratio as the current Centaur, the Centaur V will need 3 or 4 RL-10's. (Which makes me curious how ULA will make that affordable - unless they switch to BE-3)

Presumably they would be the same improved version Aerojet is bidding for ACES (most of the existing stockpile has been burned through or will be by the time Vulcan debuts, and its not clear that the tooling still exists to produce the legacy engines). 3d printing and other manufacturing modernizations helps a lot. Plus more engines produced allows some economy of scale to appear. IMO comparisons to the relatively high cost of legacy RL10 are not relevant given the significant redesign.

Talk is cheap. The historical cost is *absolutely* relevant, far more so that elusive Aerojet promises of cheaper engines.

EDIT: I would be happy to have AJR prove me wrong in this case. But they have long history of chronic overcharging, so I'm skeptical until proven wrong.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 04:56 AM by Lars-J »

Online GWH

Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #86 on: 04/10/2018 05:49 PM »
NanoRacks lays out vision for turning rockets into space outposts, starting with Independence-1:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/nanoracks-lays-vision-turning-rockets-outposts-starting-independence-1/

Starposts Website:
https://www.starposts.space/



Online e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 683
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #87 on: 04/10/2018 05:54 PM »
The article says this about Centaur (the current one) vs. the wide-body Centaur V/ACES for Vulcan:

Quote
Centaur upper stages won’t be around forever: ULA is already deep into the development of its next-generation Vulcan rocket. Initially, the Vulcan will use the Centaur as its upper stage. But eventually, ULA will switch over to a new type of refuelable upper-stage rocket known as the Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage, or ACES.

The coming transition doesn’t faze Manber. “ACES may be a little better as an outpost than the Centaur,” he said. Spent stages from NASA’s heavy-lift Space Launch System, which is currently under development, could conceivably be converted as well.
I think it's worth noting for these purposes that the image definitely shows a widebody Centaur V or ACES-based "Independence-1," as there's four engines on the back, so the confusion may be originating from it not quite percolating out to every journalist that the "Centaur" on Atlas and the "Centaur" on Vulcan are two difference Centaurs, with a different diameter and engine count. Still, cool to see this moving forward.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4826
  • Liked: 2710
  • Likes Given: 1446
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #88 on: 04/10/2018 06:00 PM »
NanoRacks lays out vision for turning rockets into space outposts, starting with Independence-1:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/nanoracks-lays-vision-turning-rockets-outposts-starting-independence-1/

Starposts Website:
https://www.starposts.space/

Cool! Would be even better if they could leave the propulsion section operational, refuel it with ACES, and go rocketing about the Earth-Moon system :D

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
  • Liked: 600
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #89 on: 04/10/2018 06:06 PM »
You could use distributed lift and a do just that.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/16/ula-gets-futuristic/

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • USA
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #90 on: 04/10/2018 06:16 PM »
Slightly interesting that the render shows NDS, not CBM as the previous Ixion-Centaur-V used. I wonder if this is a change to the ISS configuration as well. In any case, this probably refutes the concerns that Ixion (with a presumed balloon tank node structure) wouldn't be able to directly take the forces of a docking vehicle. For the ISS, if Ixion is chosen, we could be looking at a configuration with 3 NDS's and 2 CBMs, very useful for logistics once Commercial Crew and CRS2 are flying

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Israel
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #91 on: 04/10/2018 09:21 PM »

Quote
Centaur upper stages won’t be around forever: ULA is already deep into the development of its next-generation Vulcan rocket. Initially, the Vulcan will use the Centaur as its upper stage. But eventually, ULA will switch over to a new type of refuelable upper-stage rocket known as the Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage, or ACES.

The coming transition doesn’t faze Manber. “ACES may be a little better as an outpost than the Centaur,” he said. Spent stages from NASA’s heavy-lift Space Launch System, which is currently under development, could conceivably be converted as well.

In most cases, there is the tradeoff between the free centaur  volume to the robotic automated system and other complexities.
 It seems that there's  not much to gain in an LEO mission compared to a dedicated mission.
You spend a fortune on the robotic system, to end up with a sub optimal module and lower LV payload.

 There are  these  cases in which this concept could benefit:
1. Exploration missions in which the exploration upper stage is converted into habitat. In this case the upper stage is going to be in the same escape route with the payload so there is a big advantage to using it.
2. An ACES with auxiliary fuel tanks which could be used after the main tank is breached. In this case the propulsion and  other systems can be used.
3. If there is planty of unused LV performance.
4. If the robotic system can be reused over other modules, or is an integral part of the outpost.

This concept seems great in a high launch cost environment.
The recent and future decline in launch costs makes it less attractive.
Fully reusable LVs may put it to rest.
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • California
  • Liked: 3956
  • Likes Given: 2394
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #92 on: 04/10/2018 10:17 PM »
NanoRacks lays out vision for turning rockets into space outposts, starting with Independence-1:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/nanoracks-lays-vision-turning-rockets-outposts-starting-independence-1/

Starposts Website:
https://www.starposts.space/

So, just as I expected - A 50/50 split between a dry and wet lab.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #93 on: 04/10/2018 11:10 PM »
While Centuar maybe used for demo US, this technology can be used on other USs, LH being ideal due to large tank and no residues to deal with once tank is vented.

Full fit out of empty US can happen over time as crew visit the attached habitat.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #94 on: 04/11/2018 12:15 AM »
The benefits of a split dry/wet station (with integral multiple NDS/CBM's) is that of not requiring additional outfitting flights or modules for immediate use, so it is different from the Bigelow in filling the inflatable. Also, it is possible to compose a station from multiple units while still retaining multiple port access (failure/operations scheduling) with the minimum number of launches.

Both Bigelow and Ixion concepts suit  LEO stations in different ways. The Bigelow allows for continuity with the ISS without as much of a retreat from capability, due to a) ISS contents being able to be transferred to fill the larger Bigelow all at once (forestalling the need to launch as much payload from Earth's gravity well) and b) greater power from a larger solar array, based on a single ULA launch.

The Ixion concept allows for less dependence on multiple launches completing an operational ISS follow-on, with less space for continuity of ISS content, less power, and less functional space overall. Also, if you need to transfer less (or none) to the ISS, and do not need to be accessible from high latitude low energy launch vehicles, you can locate at a lower inclination (constrains also any earth observations as well) to preserve delta-v as an access/staging point.

Neither of these are well suited for the DSG for various reasons, although the Ixion concept as a short lived LLO "frozen" orbit station as a logistical support function for multiple reusable landers is an interesting "one shot" station concept as an alternative to current plans.

(A lunar station architecture does best as closer and more a means of lander support/turnover, but as props are a significant part of this and not human occupancy (ISRU will take considerable time/resources to bootstrap), it remains unclear why you'd want a hab and not a refillable depot (best not combined for safety, although the Ixion concept would allow that also quite well). While a station architecture for solar system access would likely be more about long term minimal hab of sparse duration with the means to assemble propulsion and high impulse propellants for the next few decades, leading to a distant lander support of an entirely different kind.)

Bigelow has found few customers over a decade, so the limited number of prospects for HSF stations of any kind makes it hard to project much of a business beyond that of LEO/lunar. And a follow-on commercial station doesn't look secure based on the cost to reach/support it - while a nation (or nations) can "special case" an infrequently visited, highly underused station (due to costs and frequency of visits), a commercial station likely would need at a minimum monthly visits with much more equipment turnover, larger power and long term commitments from "anchor tenants" to break even - something that the ISS has never had the chance for.

Also, to "industrialize" space you'd need a means to allow for higher risk missions than ISS, at a minimum for manufacturing and pharmaceutical uses - how do you factor that in to any stakeholder's budgetary horizons, and once you've done that, how do you know your station concept fits those requirements?

The benefit of having the ISS right now is as a means to test much of this. Yet that has yet to happen, beyond the inflatable test (BEAM) we've seen.

If you're looking to see what comes next, look to trials at the ISS of new collateral, don't look at station concepts yet because its that new collateral that will drive any commercial station concepts forward.

As to nationally funded ones, I'm afraid Paul Spudis is right in suggesting that such are delaying tactics for funding expensive lunar missions. If necessary to have, perhaps the best ones are the smallest ones as they are the shortest diversion.

Note that Musk is developing a large lander in BFS next. If you want to land on anything, you develop landers. Then you develop the means to get them there (like BFR). If it takes refueing, then its tankers and/or depots (e.g. BFS tanker). If you need them pre-positioned with resources and/or hab redundancy/repair capability, then we're back to some kind of vehicle/SC for that purpose, thus things like this concept in this thread. Seems rather obvious, apart from the politics and wishful thinking.

My impression of BO's "gradatim" approach is like with SX a slowly accumulating capability aggregate that is vertically structured off of what they have already, expanding out from footholds they intend on establishing. The kinds of compromised footholds that a nation or perhaps an industrial consortium might consider won't be interesting to either SX or BO, more likely is the reverse case on selling incremental capacity back to nations/consortium's. Thus Ixion/Bigelow aren't interesting in the bootstrap role, too little and to constrained.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6213
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2352
  • Likes Given: 786
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #95 on: 04/13/2018 12:02 AM »

Quote
Centaur upper stages won’t be around forever: ULA is already deep into the development of its next-generation Vulcan rocket. Initially, the Vulcan will use the Centaur as its upper stage. But eventually, ULA will switch over to a new type of refuelable upper-stage rocket known as the Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage, or ACES.

The coming transition doesn’t faze Manber. “ACES may be a little better as an outpost than the Centaur,” he said. Spent stages from NASA’s heavy-lift Space Launch System, which is currently under development, could conceivably be converted as well.

In most cases, there is the tradeoff between the free centaur  volume to the robotic automated system and other complexities.
 It seems that there's  not much to gain in an LEO mission compared to a dedicated mission.
You spend a fortune on the robotic system, to end up with a sub optimal module and lower LV payload.

 There are  these  cases in which this concept could benefit:
1. Exploration missions in which the exploration upper stage is converted into habitat. In this case the upper stage is going to be in the same escape route with the payload so there is a big advantage to using it.
2. An ACES with auxiliary fuel tanks which could be used after the main tank is breached. In this case the propulsion and  other systems can be used.
3. If there is planty of unused LV performance.
4. If the robotic system can be reused over other modules, or is an integral part of the outpost.

This concept seems great in a high launch cost environment.
The recent and future decline in launch costs makes it less attractive.
Fully reusable LVs may put it to rest.


The robotic arms would definitely be reused after the outfitting for various IVR/EVR tasks, especially while crewmembers are absent--especially for commercial facilities, leveraging automation and teleoperation whenever possible is paramount. The robot arms are based off of (or maybe identical to--I can't remember for sure) the Dragonfly arms that Maxar is doing for their Tipping Point effort with Tethers Unlimited. This is an arm they're trying to make in moderately large numbers, that can be launched with future GEO birds allowing maintenance and upgrades over time. While nowhere near as big as Canadarm, they would add a lot of utility to the outpost after their initial outfitting mission is complete.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 12:23 AM by jongoff »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6213
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2352
  • Likes Given: 786
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #96 on: 04/13/2018 12:22 AM »
The benefits of a split dry/wet station (with integral multiple NDS/CBM's) is that of not requiring additional outfitting flights or modules for immediate use, so it is different from the Bigelow in filling the inflatable. Also, it is possible to compose a station from multiple units while still retaining multiple port access (failure/operations scheduling) with the minimum number of launches.

Both Bigelow and Ixion concepts suit  LEO stations in different ways. The Bigelow allows for continuity with the ISS without as much of a retreat from capability, due to a) ISS contents being able to be transferred to fill the larger Bigelow all at once (forestalling the need to launch as much payload from Earth's gravity well) and b) greater power from a larger solar array, based on a single ULA launch.

The Ixion concept allows for less dependence on multiple launches completing an operational ISS follow-on, with less space for continuity of ISS content, less power, and less functional space overall. Also, if you need to transfer less (or none) to the ISS, and do not need to be accessible from high latitude low energy launch vehicles, you can locate at a lower inclination (constrains also any earth observations as well) to preserve delta-v as an access/staging point.

Neither of these are well suited for the DSG for various reasons, although the Ixion concept as a short lived LLO "frozen" orbit station as a logistical support function for multiple reusable landers is an interesting "one shot" station concept as an alternative to current plans.

(A lunar station architecture does best as closer and more a means of lander support/turnover, but as props are a significant part of this and not human occupancy (ISRU will take considerable time/resources to bootstrap), it remains unclear why you'd want a hab and not a refillable depot (best not combined for safety, although the Ixion concept would allow that also quite well). While a station architecture for solar system access would likely be more about long term minimal hab of sparse duration with the means to assemble propulsion and high impulse propellants for the next few decades, leading to a distant lander support of an entirely different kind.)

Bigelow has found few customers over a decade, so the limited number of prospects for HSF stations of any kind makes it hard to project much of a business beyond that of LEO/lunar. And a follow-on commercial station doesn't look secure based on the cost to reach/support it - while a nation (or nations) can "special case" an infrequently visited, highly underused station (due to costs and frequency of visits), a commercial station likely would need at a minimum monthly visits with much more equipment turnover, larger power and long term commitments from "anchor tenants" to break even - something that the ISS has never had the chance for.

Also, to "industrialize" space you'd need a means to allow for higher risk missions than ISS, at a minimum for manufacturing and pharmaceutical uses - how do you factor that in to any stakeholder's budgetary horizons, and once you've done that, how do you know your station concept fits those requirements?

The benefit of having the ISS right now is as a means to test much of this. Yet that has yet to happen, beyond the inflatable test (BEAM) we've seen.

If you're looking to see what comes next, look to trials at the ISS of new collateral, don't look at station concepts yet because its that new collateral that will drive any commercial station concepts forward.

As to nationally funded ones, I'm afraid Paul Spudis is right in suggesting that such are delaying tactics for funding expensive lunar missions. If necessary to have, perhaps the best ones are the smallest ones as they are the shortest diversion.

Note that Musk is developing a large lander in BFS next. If you want to land on anything, you develop landers. Then you develop the means to get them there (like BFR). If it takes refueing, then its tankers and/or depots (e.g. BFS tanker). If you need them pre-positioned with resources and/or hab redundancy/repair capability, then we're back to some kind of vehicle/SC for that purpose, thus things like this concept in this thread. Seems rather obvious, apart from the politics and wishful thinking.

My impression of BO's "gradatim" approach is like with SX a slowly accumulating capability aggregate that is vertically structured off of what they have already, expanding out from footholds they intend on establishing. The kinds of compromised footholds that a nation or perhaps an industrial consortium might consider won't be interesting to either SX or BO, more likely is the reverse case on selling incremental capacity back to nations/consortium's. Thus Ixion/Bigelow aren't interesting in the bootstrap role, too little and to constrained.

SG,

A few quick thoughts now that I'm back in town:

1- Ixion/Outpost already provides a pretty healthy amount of power as-is, but it would also be relatively straightforward to add additional power/radiator capacity with post-launch installed external deployable arrays/radiators. They will have a pair of pretty nice EVR-capable robot arms available after the initial outfitting, and I can see some pretty straightforward ways to do that kind of outfitting if the power capacity of the base Outpost is insufficient.
2- I was also thinking about Outpost as a polar-LLO refueling base for reusable landers. There was some genuine interest at the Gateway Science workshop in the ability to do multi-landing science and exploration missions that could be enabled by a suitably well-placed depot (I think polar-LLO is a much better place for lander mission support than NRO/DRO/EML-x). Getting multiple samples back from a much wider range of sites for instance, or employing leave-behind kits for things like heat flux and seismology experiments (IIRC something like that was on the decadal survey or the list of potential future New Frontiers missions). I like having it in a different orbit from LOP-G, and not having it primarily intended to be a place for NASA astronauts to hang out, because that avoiding those to things dramatically increase the odds of it being affordable.
3- I also thought about whether or not you wanted to cut into the LH2 tank for that mission. I could go either way, but it wouldn't be hard at all for NanoRacks to do an Outpost that just used the mission module as habitable volume, and left the LH2 tank un-canopened for LH2 storage if needed. Such a depot variant of Outpost would be only a pretty modest variation on the purely-habitat version.

~Jon

Online GWH

Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #97 on: 04/13/2018 05:42 AM »
In most cases, there is the tradeoff between the free centaur  volume to the robotic automated system and other complexities.
 It seems that there's  not much to gain in an LEO mission compared to a dedicated mission.
You spend a fortune on the robotic system, to end up with a sub optimal module and lower LV payload.

The difference in costs between an Atlas 501 and 551 is only $33M at commercial rates. 40% more cost for 130% more payload.
Vulcan with Centaur V should be at least double the payload of Atlas 401 to LEO.

A Cygnus plus Starpost mission should be easy for either vehicle.
This concept maximizes cost efficiencies with ULA launch vehicles, piggybacking off a pre-dedicated mission.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 06:52 PM by GWH »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #98 on: 04/13/2018 06:14 AM »
Jon are the robotic arms battery powered or do mounting points need to provide power?

Wireless control with battery power would make mounting points very simple. Plus one less point of failure. Arm is free to go anywhere given enough mounting points.
Could even be used on lunar surface base.

On larger station there could be a few arms  in a row allowing acting like bucket chain.

The best thing about them they can be stored internally for easy servicing, also easy to replace.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #99 on: 04/13/2018 06:43 PM »
To narrow things down, don't feel optimistic about ISS replacement / follow-on at the moment, due to "follow-thru" failings of international partners solely.

However the LLO does have some surprising potential based on recent SLS fallout.

2- I was also thinking about Outpost as a polar-LLO refueling base for reusable landers. There was some genuine interest at the Gateway Science workshop in the ability to do multi-landing science and exploration missions that could be enabled by a suitably well-placed depot (I think polar-LLO is a much better place for lander mission support than NRO/DRO/EML-x). Getting multiple samples back from a much wider range of sites for instance, or employing leave-behind kits for things like heat flux and seismology experiments (IIRC something like that was on the decadal survey or the list of potential future New Frontiers missions).

Let me boil this down as a specific concept for Ixion application. An expendable "logistical support" vehicle that inserts to LLO frozen orbits (first 86 degree for near polar operation - keep in mind that polar orbits on the moon don't quite work like Earth in that they are fixed against the Moon's orientation, so the path beneath remains static, limiting access). It supports two reusable landers that are roughly the size/weight of Apollo's LM, allowing for a degree of safety with "cross support". Since unlike LM they are single stage, the "backup" of jettison of the descent stage is handled via second vehicle, either by landing both vehicles or by co-descent, docking/flip and second vehicle boosting back for abort to HLO (or LLO).

In this concept, you'd have two teams of two astros, each team in a lander with it providing primary hab on the lunar surface for 90% of the mission time, so they are either sleeping or exploring for the majority of mission, no orbital sleeping quarters (other than on the Orion in HLO), and minimal occupancy on dry lab (if any). Two smaller landers instead of one big four person lander, for economies of scale as well as greater safety/productivity.

The purpose of this architecture is to maximize exploration "reach" with high mobility lander as the primary asset, such that "flags and footprints" becomes aggressive lunar EVA surface time for astros in multi-sortie mode.

The logistical support for the landers is for an expendable Ixion placed in an ultra close orbit, where it will be intentionally expended at end of mission to "dig" for a resource (perhaps subsurface ice) along the orbital path, before then another Ixion arrives to acquire both landers with new exploration resources/logistics for a subsequent expedition and potentially props to ascend and change to a different inclination/frozen orbit on descent, or as a fallback means to allow access to shutdown Orion if either lander couldn't access HLO. (Note that each expedition has resources for a specific science or industrialization mission to outfit the landers with, and teleoperation from Earth prepares both landers prior to mission arrival of astros, again eliminating time on orbit and maximizing surface time (no need for hab radiation shielding.

Initial deployment of an Ixion logistical vehicle and a lander would allow multiple checkout landing flights and refueling of lander w/o any Orion, so this could be started immediately w/o waiting on SLS/Orion. (Orion might even arrive in lunar orbit coincidentally).

Mission operations would presume a prepositioned Ixion and landers (1-3). A lander autonomously rendezvous with Orion in HLO, conveying four astros to Ixion/landers, where near immediate departure to lunar surface in landers occur, with Ixion/Orion in separate powered-down state. Surface operations and reposition of landers on surface consume resources and accumulate return materials or deploy equipment carried. Return of landers to Ixion as needed to extend mission with more consumables/materials/equipment transfer. Misson abort or termination returns crew/materials to Orion, which is powered up in HLO and returns to Earth.

Concept does not require a hydrolox lander (could use hypers or methalox), however favors hydrolox for versatility.

Also, this use of the Ixion exploits the temporary nature of LLO to the utmost, and eliminates the need for resupply which is built in to the design. It could be scaled for duration and number of landers. Or specialized for perhaps commercial exploitation of lunar resources by an dedicated industrialization mission.

Tags: