Author Topic: NASA teams evaluating ISS-built Exploration Platform roadmap  (Read 161724 times)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8359
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2542
  • Likes Given: 8299
I would recommend BOTH of you to get an L2 subscription  ;)

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
I would recommend BOTH of you to get an L2 subscription  ;)
I wish!  I'm thinking of starting a lemonade stand to pay for it.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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.)

There are three places the space station could be made:

1. At EML using 6t chunks
2. At the ISS using 15-20t chunks
3. At 28 degree orbit using 15-20t chunks

The ISS already has living accommodation, solar power and an arm these would have to be lifted to a spaceship yard at 28 degrees.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 8

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).

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0

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).

Yet it should be mentioned Dragon has been to ISS once and it remains to be seen what kind of tempo they can maintain.  Cygnus has not flown at all, ATV will soon be history, Progress/Soyuz have questions surrounding them with respect to workmanship and HTV is essentially on a fixed schedule. 

Commercial crew is also still TBD for obvious reasons. 

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25276
  • Likes Given: 12124
Gateway is needed for deep space tech and operations path finding. Also needed for staging and repairing a deep space transfer craft between missions. Alternately, the gateway itself could be used for deep space exploration. Also useful for staging point of a (partially) reusable lunar lander. And can be done in parallel, ideally, since it uses existing parts mostly.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
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.)

There are three places the space station could be made:

1. At EML using 6t chunks
2. At the ISS using 15-20t chunks
3. At 28 degree orbit using 15-20t chunks

The ISS already has living accommodation, solar power and an arm these would have to be lifted to a spaceship yard at 28 degrees.
What we need at the right orbit is an assemble station and a crew transfer vehicle between stations for LEO.

We could start the build of the new station ( an assemble and storage station ) at ISS for the pressurized part. Then move it off to it's needed orbit. Why not build this first with new advancements. If there is a problem they are still in LEO. If all works as planned then we could be that much closer in tech we need for Mars , NEO and a better EML1/2 station. Spend the money on commercial crew taxi followed by the in orbit taxi for crew. Then they could with current launchers send up the parts for the new LEO station ( manned when needed, not 24/7 ).

EML1/2 station is more of a gateway than for research on how to survive out of Earth low orbit.

With such a station we could assemble the ISS-EP and fuel it's EDS or assemble Mars departure craft ( cargo, crew, or probe ).

The 2010 Authorization bill does have crew Taxi in it and that is and should be or high priority.

We will also need a LEO to EML1/2 and back to LEO reusable crew transfer vehicle that could be made from some of the tech of the LEO taxi's. t/Space already had it's CEV for LEO to LLO and back to LEO concept, that was back in 2005. We have new tech that could work for this concept.

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Indeed.  Yet NASA needs to decide what ISS is meant to be once and for all.  It is advertised right now as a world-class microgravity research labratory.

Turn it into a ship yard and one takes away from that selling point.  Great care is taken now to minimize vibrations into the structure that could affect said experiments. 

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
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.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
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.
Money aside , would the U.S. again fail to supply crew and cargo to a new operation as they did with ISS when they canceled shuttle without a replacement already flying. Each partner has to be committed and back ups have to be in place. Peoples lives ( crew in space ) can not afford political debate or just not wanting to further fund a project mid way through. More reason to get the commercial in place.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
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.
The SLS is supposed to be a mean to achieve something, not an objective by itself. So the SLS should support something, not the other way around.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25276
  • Likes Given: 12124
I 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?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
I 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?
It's not anti SLS. A flight to EML1/2 for SLS does not look like it would take place before 2021 according to the article, that is eight and a half years away.

How much lead time do we need to make the pieces, launch, assemble, and send the ISS-EP to EML1/2?

Hoping they are still looking at going to the moon to help with long stays or colonizing Mars!

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Quick, cheap & easy this gateway isn't.

I fear it will take too long and become a mission in itself.

Getting bogged down with medium lift launches is not the path forward.

The USA is very far behind on space station technology.

This relies heavily on support from the Russians and they're only going to do that if there's a moon lander supplied by somebody else. Is this is all about getting ready for a moon program without it looking like a moon program?

SLS should get every exploration payload.

Gateway launched all up in the 2020s. This also gives the russians time to build a moon lander instead of international modules which I think they should be doing as they're the ones that haven't been there and the ones that want to go.

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1767
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 2688
Well, Orion is currently the only vehicle that can go to EML1, and SLS the only vehicle that can for sure get it there.

Orion is still under contruction and SLS still under design, so it's a stretch to say 'for sure'.

Edit: to ask, can FH get Orion to EML1?
« Last Edit: 06/16/2012 02:41 am by oiorionsbelt »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 8

Edit: to ask, can FH get Orion to EML1?

Not  in one launch but with two FH or even a Delta heavy could do.

Also if you could get orion's mass down some or increase FH performance just a bit you could do it in one launch.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2012 03:06 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2072
  • Likes Given: 1978
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?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 8


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?

I would lay a bet that berthing would be prefered to docking if you are building at the ISS. Lower risk.

Cgynus, although smaller does not have thrusters in the Front. Plus ISS structures were designed for berthing to one another not docking.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2012 05:52 am by pathfinder_01 »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1