I didn't say better - I said proven.
Quote from: su27k on 06/10/2017 04:21 amTo quote the article "“In terms of basic functionality, the DSG is being planned to support multiple NASA, commercial, and international objectives,” added the overview. “It would be designed for the deep space environment and would support a crew of 4 for total mission durations of up to 42 days with the Orion vehicle attached."Please explain how is a 42 days ECLSS qualifies as long term life support?After 10 visits that is 10 * 42 = 420 days. More than a year.
To quote the article "“In terms of basic functionality, the DSG is being planned to support multiple NASA, commercial, and international objectives,” added the overview. “It would be designed for the deep space environment and would support a crew of 4 for total mission durations of up to 42 days with the Orion vehicle attached."Please explain how is a 42 days ECLSS qualifies as long term life support?
This is the whole problem with this DSG plan. If you want to test long term ECLSS then just focus on ECLSS, if you want to build DST then build it, drag DSG into it will only mean less funding for things actually matter.
Quote from: su27k on 06/17/2017 04:33 amThis is the whole problem with this DSG plan. If you want to test long term ECLSS then just focus on ECLSS, if you want to build DST then build it, drag DSG into it will only mean less funding for things actually matter.The point of DSG is to give SLS/Orion something to do until DST is ready. Experience gained is a bonus.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/10/2017 04:47 amQuote from: su27k on 06/10/2017 04:21 amTo quote the article "“In terms of basic functionality, the DSG is being planned to support multiple NASA, commercial, and international objectives,” added the overview. “It would be designed for the deep space environment and would support a crew of 4 for total mission durations of up to 42 days with the Orion vehicle attached."Please explain how is a 42 days ECLSS qualifies as long term life support?After 10 visits that is 10 * 42 = 420 days. More than a year.Where does 10 visits come from? There are only 6 Orion flights (EM-1 to 5 and EM-7) before DST one year shakedown mission, and only 4 Orion flights (EM-3 to 5 and EM-7) after Habitation Module is deployed, so you only gets to run ECLSS 4 * 42 = 168 days before you need to run ECLSS for a year. And you only run ECLSS 42 days a time, so you can't test whether it can be run continuously without breakdown.{snip}
Quote from: Oli on 06/17/2017 08:10 amQuote from: su27k on 06/17/2017 04:33 amThis is the whole problem with this DSG plan. If you want to test long term ECLSS then just focus on ECLSS, if you want to build DST then build it, drag DSG into it will only mean less funding for things actually matter.The point of DSG is to give SLS/Orion something to do until DST is ready. Experience gained is a bonus.Plus international partners want it as it get them closer to moon.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/17/2017 09:03 amQuote from: Oli on 06/17/2017 08:10 amQuote from: su27k on 06/17/2017 04:33 amThis is the whole problem with this DSG plan. If you want to test long term ECLSS then just focus on ECLSS, if you want to build DST then build it, drag DSG into it will only mean less funding for things actually matter.The point of DSG is to give SLS/Orion something to do until DST is ready. Experience gained is a bonus.Plus international partners want it as it get them closer to moon.They have no money to land on the moon.
No country except maybe China can afford to fund a lunar architecture with earth as your starting point. Apollo did it at huge cost and Constellation tried. If the starting point is 2.5km/s from lunar surface and only thing required is lander capable of 5-5.5km/s then develop costs are lot lower. A lot easier sell especially if it could be operation within 5yrs of approval. I suspect there will be cargo landers operating by time DSG is in place, making development of human lander more affordable than it is now.
Quote from: Oli on 06/17/2017 01:33 pmThey have no money to land on the moon.Applying the funding split ratio between the Apollo LM and the CSM to Orion and a new lunar lander, a lander would require funding of about $800 million per year.
They have no money to land on the moon.
Funding by agencyNASA: ~$19.6 billionISRO: ~$1.2 billionESA: ~$6.4 billionCNSA: ~$1.3 billionJAXA: ~$2 billionRoscosmos: ~$3.2 billionKARI: $583 millionIn reality, any of a half dozen space agencies could afford it. Probably including south korea's if that was their only project.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 06/18/2017 04:52 pmQuote from: Oli on 06/17/2017 01:33 pmThey have no money to land on the moon.Applying the funding split ratio between the Apollo LM and the CSM to Orion and a new lunar lander, a lander would require funding of about $800 million per year.$800M/year for how many years? What are you assuming the cost of a new lunar lander would be?Plus, Oli did not state they couldn't afford a lander, but that there was no money to land on the Moon. Which to me means the funding for the entire effort, not just a transportation element.QuoteFunding by agencyNASA: ~$19.6 billionISRO: ~$1.2 billionESA: ~$6.4 billionCNSA: ~$1.3 billionJAXA: ~$2 billionRoscosmos: ~$3.2 billionKARI: $583 millionIn reality, any of a half dozen space agencies could afford it. Probably including south korea's if that was their only project.You are assuming that each of those space agencies could easily substitute a $800M/year lander program for programs they are already committed to working on - which ignores the constituents of those other programs.As to the U.S. all monies come from the general fund, and there is no constitutional limit on how much money Congress can allocate to NASA. If it's important Congress will fund it - we've already seen that Congress is OK for deficit spending.Same with the DSG/DST. If Congress thinks it's important to have a national asset in cislunar space, then they will fund it. That won't happen in the FY2018 fiscal year though, so yet again payloads and missions for the SLS and Orion will not be committed to - not sure how much longer that can happen before it's recognized as a trend...
Aerojet Rocketdyne, a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), has signed a $67 million cost-plus fixed fee (plus performance incentive) contract with NASA to develop a high-power electric propulsion system that will enable key elements of NASA's plans for exploration of cis-lunar space and Mars.Under the Advanced Electric Propulsion System (AEPS) contract, the Aerojet Rocketdyne team will develop, qualify and deliver five 12.5 kilowatt Hall thruster subsystems including thrusters,
Luke, it's a trap!DSG will neatly close the USG/contractor "business case." Deep space destination for US HSF: Check. Big flashy rocket and spacecraft for transportation thereto: Check. Throw in some low-mass science experiments on each flight, and... what more could you want? Or more precisely, what more could you get? Because for the next 20 years, your entire budget will be barely adequate for maintaining the DSG and building/launching/disposing of its transportation system.And that will be that.
The Journey to Mars seems to be pretty much dead
On Friday, the space agency released what it called a "mid-year report" on NASA five months into the presidency of Donald Trump. The nearly five-minute video...
...the video makes no mention of Mars at all, the planet where NASA has by far the most assets of any world other than Earth—several rovers and orbiters studying the red planet's surface and atmosphere for clues of its past habitability for life. NASA has made a number of significant discoveries about Mars this year, such as confirming the absence of carbonate in rocks there. But none merit mention in the promotional video.Journey to MarsThe red planet is also excluded from the video's discussion when it comes to human exploration. Prior to this year, the agency's off-stated goal was sending humans to Mars in the 2030s. This "Journey to Mars" had been a frequent talking point for then-administrator Charles Bolden and other agency leaders. They talked about the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft as key components of this mission.