I would recommend BOTH of you to get an L2 subscription
So the question becomes, "How is using ISS better than building an EML station out of 6t chunks?"(EDIT to add: "Or 9t chunks?" with image showing C3=0 payloads.)
The ISS already has living accommodation, solar power and an arm these would have to be lifted to a spaceship yard at 28 degrees.
In addition the ISS has a logistic's train via Dragon, Cygnus, HTV, ATV and Progress. ISS will also have crew via commercail crew(so if you need an extra hand for a few days.... Remember the ccdev all hold 7 and the ISS only needs 4).
Quote from: sdsds on 06/15/2012 08:15 pmSo the question becomes, "How is using ISS better than building an EML station out of 6t chunks?"(EDIT to add: "Or 9t chunks?" with image showing C3=0 payloads.)There are three places the space station could be made:1. At EML using 6t chunks2. At the ISS using 15-20t chunks3. At 28 degree orbit using 15-20t chunksThe ISS already has living accommodation, solar power and an arm these would have to be lifted to a spaceship yard at 28 degrees.
Originally the SSF (space station freedom) concept that ISS grew out of was based on a station that could also be used as a construction point/yard for deep space/eml station stacks. So essentially this would be just using one of its original but as yet un-used functions.
I feel that supporting this is anti-SLS so I don't want to.Good luck to the people pitching this though. It's a good idea if what you want to do is have some international co-operation to open up the surface of the moon.It's not yet determined if any international partners are willing to spend much money on it though. Just because they're interested doesn't mean they can afford anything outside of the commitments to ISS they already have.
I don't really like the gateway because I don't see how it supports the SLS and NEA exploration.If it can be launched in larger chunks later on using only SLS it might be better.Small chunk modules are high TRL but it's the old way of doing things.Time to get back into a heavy lifter type thinking.
I feel that supporting this is anti-SLS so I don't want to.
Quote from: spectre9 on 06/16/2012 01:23 amI feel that supporting this is anti-SLS so I don't want to. how is that a good criteria? Shouldn't it be whatever gets us to expand into cosmos soonest and most surely and permanently?Besides, this is actually very good for SLS, since the biggest criticism of SLS is lack of payload other than Orion. Well, Orion is currently the only vehicle that can go to EML1, and SLS the only vehicle that can for sure get it there. The gateway can be built ASAP and in parallel to Orion and SLS, allowing SLS to have a real purpose as soon as it is available. (and the Boeing proposal for a single-launch lunar mission with a reusable lander greatly utilizes SLS quite fully and is a much less expensive (per mission) architecture than CxP and requires a gateway like this.How the heck is this anti SLS?
Well, Orion is currently the only vehicle that can go to EML1, and SLS the only vehicle that can for sure get it there.
Edit: to ask, can FH get Orion to EML1?
But the whole idea is to use the ISS because you can easily get 20tn chunks with stock LV AND you have an arm. Please note that nothing prevents the station from receiving an arm at the ISS and using it later on EML2.
The point about the arm is a good one, and needs to be carefully assessed. Look at the image in the article that shows the Launch Mission Kit. Note the forward end of the payload is equipped with a low impact docking system, not with a common berthing mechanism. Is there any evidence supporting the notion that -- without thrusters near the forward end of the payload -- the RCS on the LMK could provide the attitude control needed for capture by the arm? Or does the "build it as ISS" plan still require autonomous docking?