NASA teams evaluating ISS-built Exploration Platform roadmap

[Chris Bergin]

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!

[edkyle99]

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

[Ronsmytheiii]

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

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.

– 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.

[FinalFrontier]

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.

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

[FinalFrontier]

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.

[Jason1701]

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.

[Jason Sole]

Great article, good news!

[Longhorn John]

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.

[RocketmanUS]

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.

[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?

[Lampyridae]

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?

[A_M_Swallow]

{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.

[FinalFrontier]

{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.

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

[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).

[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.

[Ben the Space Brit]

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.

[Lars_J]

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.

[Robotbeat]

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).