Orion BEO before SLS

[Namechange User]

So it seems that people agree that this is a sound idea in principle, which would allow NASA to launch multiple manned circum-lunar missions within the decade, using existing hardware at a fraction of the cost of SLS?

Yeap, the political problem is if you use Delta for a launcher you are not using the shuttle workforce.  Anyway in 2008 ULA offered Delta Heavy to NASA for a one time cost of 1 billion(or so) to man rate and 300 million a flight if NASA purchased 9 flights.

In addition you really need some hardware at l1/l2 to make this mission more useful than 3 guys in a can for 21 days. A station (and there are plans that use SEP to move a station from LEO(ISS) to l1/l2. A lunar lander and you might need some supply craft(Dragon could be the easist to modify into a BEO supply craft launched on a FH).

This is ridiculous.  The "shuttle workforce" is essentially gone.  You like to go on about it if the "shuttle workforce" being some sort of entitled group instead of a workforce of space professionals with years of experience, knowledge, skills etc that just happened to apply that to shuttle because it was one of the programs at the time. 

As for a space station at L1/L2, that is still "guys in a can" and putting something there for the sake of it will not automatically make the mission more "useful".  For that you need an overall executable strategy and tactics. 

Finally. Sparky, based on 95% of the posters in this thread are who they are, I would add caution to making a general claim that "people agree this is a sound idea". 

[mmeijeri]

Finally. Sparky, based on 95% of the posters in this thread are who they are, I would add caution to making a general claim that "people agree this is a sound idea". 

Well OV, we're all who we are, and some of us have strongly held and / or consistent views, including your good self.

[mmeijeri]

Then having Centaur ride as a payload might require more than merely a standard kit modification.

Another thought on that: this is the sort of capability we'll want to have anyway if we want to resupply cryogenic depots. In that case you wouldn't be launching the propellant in an expensive upper stage, but in as dumb a propellant canister as possible. No dumber than that of course, and it remains a cryogenic payload.

An alternative would be to develop ACES (just the upper stage, not necessarily the depot yet), which we'll likely want anyway, but I think an existing stage with docking capability and an extended duration kit would be simpler, faster and cheaper. Development of the full ACES could come later, however it is funded.

[pathfinder_01]

This is ridiculous.  The "shuttle workforce" is essentially gone.  You like to go on about it if the "shuttle workforce" being some sort of entitled group instead of a workforce of space professionals with years of experience, knowledge, skills etc that just happened to apply that to shuttle because it was one of the programs at the time. 

I don't for a minute doubt that they are skilled.  However NASA as it was set up from its creation till 2010 was about building and launching a rocket(First Saturn and then Shuttle). In fact NASA used to be the only way a civilian could launch something in space and at one point NASA policy was to launch everything on the shuttle and cancel the ELV. The deregulation of the rocket industry left HSF as the shuttle's sole role.

NASA can no longer launch communications satelights due to the commercial launch act and NASA itself can't launch probes and the like due to the launch services provider act.

Atlas and Delta are built by ULA and if you use them then ULA might hire a few hundred people but the 10,000 or so former shuttle workers would be SOL in terms of an space job. It is just that the era when it took 10,000-20,000 people to build and launch a rocket system is over.  Congress does not wish this era to be over therefore SLS is an attempt to keep as many employed as possible. A rather bad attempt imho due to the fact that it is going to take a year or two worth of design/testing before anywhere near full hiring can(or should happen).

As for a space station at L1/L2, that is still "guys in a can" and putting something there for the sake of it will not automatically make the mission more "useful".  For that you need an overall executable strategy and tactics. 

Orion is optimized for transport. A station would be less volume constrained and allow longer missions. I don't see someone fitting an exercise bike and treadmill in Orion while still holding 4 people. A space station would provide the space for experiments, airlock, robot arms ect.

[mmeijeri]

With out the LES Orion might be launchable on the cheaper Atlas.

Another consideration is that you could refuel Orion at the ISS. Of course that requires extra facilities at the ISS and modifications to Orion, but it's an interesting possibility. Jorge has said that there is limited plumbing support for this in the Orion design already, although it is currently inactive and even physically blocked by other equipment if I remember correctly.

[Namechange User]

This is ridiculous.  The "shuttle workforce" is essentially gone.  You like to go on about it if the "shuttle workforce" being some sort of entitled group instead of a workforce of space professionals with years of experience, knowledge, skills etc that just happened to apply that to shuttle because it was one of the programs at the time. 

I don't for a minute doubt that they are skilled.  However NASA as it was set up from its creation till 2010 was about building and launching a rocket(First Saturn and then Shuttle). In fact NASA used to be the only way a civilian could launch something in space and at one point NASA policy was to launch everything on the shuttle and cancel the ELV. The deregulation of the rocket industry left HSF as the shuttle's sole role.

NASA can no longer launch communications satelights due to the commercial launch act and NASA itself can't launch probes and the like due to the launch services provider act.

Atlas and Delta are built by ULA and if you use them then ULA might hire a few hundred people but the 10,000 or so former shuttle workers would be SOL in terms of an space job. It is just that the era when it took 10,000-20,000 people to build and launch a rocket system is over.  Congress does not wish this era to be over therefore SLS is an attempt to keep as many employed as possible. A rather bad attempt imho due to the fact that it is going to take a year or two worth of design/testing before anywhere near full hiring can(or should happen).

As for a space station at L1/L2, that is still "guys in a can" and putting something there for the sake of it will not automatically make the mission more "useful".  For that you need an overall executable strategy and tactics. 

Orion is optimized for transport. A station would be less volume constrained and allow longer missions. I don't see someone fitting an exercise bike and treadmill in Orion while still holding 4 people. A space station would provide the space for experiments, airlock, robot arms ect.

With respect to shuttle, your latest rant is all about rockets and comm sats, which have nothing to do with shuttle.  Shuttle was much more than just a rocket.  It further validates my point you do not get it. 

As for a space station at L1/L2, ok so now you have more room but still "guys in a can", just a larger one.  You have provided zero rationale (you know, the strategy and tactics) as to *why* it is required there.  Otherwise, it's just a waste, a resource drain and redundant to ISS. 

[pathfinder_01]

Here is the reason why you would want a station at l1/l2.

1.   This is a good location to marshal craft for lunar, mars and NEO missions.

2.   It enables reuse. You could build a reusable lunar Lander that traveled between the surface and this point (getting refueled).  A SEP powered NEO craft could return here for reuse after a mission.  Although we are concerned with Orion only, it is possible to build something reusable that goes from either LEO or Earth to l1/l2.

3.   The radiation environment is slightly different than at the ISS

4.   It takes reduces requirements on other craft.  For instance it could provide power, propellant, and station keeping for a lunar Lander. Likewise for Orion.

5.   Telerobotics  from the lunar surface could be performed. Not a great reason but telerobotics from Mars orbit or Venus orbit would be a lot more useful.

6.   It allows for easy travel to anywhere on the lunar surface esp. the poles.

[Namechange User]

Here is the reason why you would want a station at l1/l2.

1.   This is a good location to marshal craft for lunar, mars and NEO missions.

2.   It enables reuse. You could build a reusable lunar Lander that traveled between the surface and this point (getting refueled).  A SEP powered NEO craft could return here for reuse after a mission.  Although we are concerned with Orion only, it is possible to build something reusable that goes from either LEO or Earth to l1/l2.

3.   The radiation environment is slightly different than at the ISS

4.   It takes reduces requirements on other craft.  For instance it could provide power, propellant, and station keeping for a lunar Lander. Likewise for Orion.

5.   Telerobotics  from the lunar surface could be performed. Not a great reason but telerobotics from Mars orbit or Venus orbit would be a lot more useful.

6.   It allows for easy travel to anywhere on the lunar surface esp. the poles.

Nope.  Still missing the bigger picture.  That is supporting data that may or may not be relevent. 

[mmeijeri]

Here is the reason why you would want a station at l1/l2.

Good reasons. Here are some more reasons:

- long launch windows, no issues with nodal regression
- less thrust and Isp requirements
- less need for large transfer stages
- convenient for adding low energy trajectories and high Isp propulsion to the mix

[sdsds]

As for a space station at L1/L2, that is still "guys in a can" and putting something there for the sake of it will not automatically make the mission more "useful".  For that you need an overall executable strategy and tactics. 

This is excellent advice:  the L1/L2 space station concept needs to fit into a well-developed "bigger picture."  To me that bigger picture is the one being called Flexible Path.  (Although admittedly not everyone using the Flexible Path phrase has the same big picture!)

Then having Centaur ride as a payload might require more than merely a standard kit modification.

Another thought on that: this is the sort of capability we'll want to have anyway if we want to resupply cryogenic depots. In that case you wouldn't be launching the propellant in an expensive upper stage, but in as dumb a propellant canister as possible. No dumber than that of course, and it remains a cryogenic payload.

Although I have been cautioned that it might not be simple in practice, it seems like a centaur payload mounted "upside down" on the centaur stage of an AV-H ought to be basically structurally stable, avoiding the mass penalty of extra payload support structures.

[clongton]

Yeap, the political problem is if you use Delta for a launcher you are not using the shuttle workforce.

This is not a political or any other kind of problem anymore. The "Shuttle Workforce" no longer even exists, excepting a few survivors scattered here and there. Thete's nothing to save; they're all gone.

Shuttle wasn't just a rocket with wings; it was an entire soup to nuts space transportation and delivery system. We have, perhaps irretrievably, lost one of the most valuable assets this nation possessed with the loss of the "Shuttle Workforce". The politics of utter stupidity in all its glory.

[clongton]

Here is the reason why you would want a station at l1/l2.

1.   This is a good location to marshal craft for lunar, mars and NEO missions.

2.   It enables reuse. You could build a reusable lunar Lander that traveled between the surface and this point (getting refueled).  A SEP powered NEO craft could return here for reuse after a mission.  Although we are concerned with Orion only, it is possible to build something reusable that goes from either LEO or Earth to l1/l2.

3.   The radiation environment is slightly different than at the ISS

4.   It takes reduces requirements on other craft.  For instance it could provide power, propellant, and station keeping for a lunar Lander. Likewise for Orion.

5.   Telerobotics  from the lunar surface could be performed. Not a great reason but telerobotics from Mars orbit or Venus orbit would be a lot more useful.

6.   It allows for easy travel to anywhere on the lunar surface esp. the poles.

All nice things to consider but consider this:

There is nothing there except what we put there - nothing. Putting a station of any kind there will require enormous logistics support - even more than the ISS. There needs to be a really, REALLY good reason to do it. Think ISS was expensive? Try ongoing funding of a L1/L2 station. Sticker shock.

[A_M_Swallow]

Nope.  Still missing the bigger picture.  That is supporting data that may or may not be relevent. 

Which are off topic for an Orion and SLS thread.

BEO need, requirements and possible strategies may deserve its own thread.

[pathfinder_01]

All nice things to consider but consider this:

There is nothing there except what we put there - nothing. Putting a station of any kind there will require enormous logistics support - even more than the ISS. There needs to be a really, REALLY good reason to do it. Think ISS was expensive? Try ongoing funding of a L1/L2 station. Sticker shock.

One way to control costs is via it being man tenable and limiting crew to about 3-4.  I doubt it will require more logistics support than the ISS. The support might be costlier per pound but that is that. Launch Orion on EELV enables the ability to go at a slow pace if need be. One or two missions a year isn't much of a problem for EELV based Orion. One or two missions a year for SLS means huge fixed costs.

Anyway here is an esimate for a l1/l2 gateway: http://www.futureinspaceoperations.com/papers/HumanOps_Beyond_LEO_11_2010.pdf. 

With those estimates a single Dragon could hold enough to support a crew of 3-4 for up to 180 days and would be volume limited not mass limited. The only trouble is you will be limited to around 12MT for the total payload mass. LEO Dragon masses about 10MT total(max payload plus capsule) so it appears that a BEO variant could trade enough mass for propellant to do a l1/l2 cargo run if launched on a Delta IV heavy or FH.

A single Cynus could deliver 30 days worth in terms of mass and more than 180 days worth in terms of volume. LEO Cynus masses about 3MT total, so again there is room to modify and launch supplies via Delta heavy or FH.