NASA/ESA/Russia discussing International Lunar Station

[Oli]

Looks affordable, mainly because it doesn't include a manned landing.

This is basically what I realistically expect for the next 20 years: Manned missions to cis-lunar space and Mars orbit combined with surface telerobotics and sample return.

[Pipcard]

And why not include China

Because some people (not necessarily myself) are worried about "industrial espionage"

[Danderman]

Certainly including China in this projection as a cost saving measure should be considered.

[sdsds]

Looks affordable, mainly because it doesn't include a manned landing.

Yes although it does enable crew on the lunar surface if that's what motivates some partner nation that's never been there. The attached figure is from the paper linked upthread:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf

[redliox]

Certainly including China in this projection as a cost saving measure should be considered.

Bear in mind back in the 1990s they said the same thing with Russia, and a consequence later included delays due to them not having crucial modules ready as well as dependence on them to deliver NASA crews.  However, allowing China to join and add a module of their own (so long as it isn't a crucial core piece) isn't a bad idea.  They do have an interest in the Moon so may as well politely invite them along.

[Nicolas PILLET]

as well as dependence on them to deliver NASA crews.

The dependance of partners on each other is one of the key concept of cooperation...

[TrevorMonty]

Certainly including China in this projection as a cost saving measure should be considered.

Bear in mind back in the 1990s they said the same thing with Russia, and a consequence later included delays due to them not having crucial modules ready as well as dependence on them to deliver NASA crews.  However, allowing China to join and add a module of their own (so long as it isn't a crucial core piece) isn't a bad idea.  They do have an interest in the Moon so may as well politely invite them along.

China would eventually give an alternative crew transport.

[notsorandom]

It is interesting to see the Russians are proposing a low lunar orbit of approximately 100km. Orion doesn't have the capability to enter and leave that orbit. It doesn't have enough delta V. However the spacecraft can enter and leave L2 or DRO and even bring a modest payload along. Its doubtful a station will be placed in LLO at least initially because Orion would have to be upgraded or the lunar version of the Federatsiya and Agnara-5V put into operation.

[sdsds]

It is interesting to see the Russians are proposing a low lunar orbit of approximately 100km.

This might work for their mission objectives. NASA wanted global lunar surface access and anytime return. It is difficult (or impossible?) to achieve those capabilities with a mission mode that leverages an LLO station.

[redliox]

as well as dependence on them to deliver NASA crews.

The dependance of partners on each other is one of the key concept of cooperation...

Or a liability if there's a schedule.  Zvezda, an early linchpin component for ISS, caused construction to be delayed three times: first from an initial 1996 target, then 1998 (during which time the first 2 pieces were put in play), and once more to mid-2000.  This forced the FBG module to fly solo (carrying Unity) for 2 solid years instead of the 6 months it was nominally intended to; that is my definition of a liability.

Cooperation is nice, but loses it's merit if a partner fails to deliver...such as a roommate failing to pay rent consistently.

This new ILS should be designed to minimize such delays, although there will be a core module somewhere in the design.  Considering America/NASA will be the only entity able to place substantial payloads in Lunar orbit, it should by default absorb this role.

[redliox]

It is interesting to see the Russians are proposing a low lunar orbit of approximately 100km.

This might work for their mission objectives. NASA wanted global lunar surface access and anytime return. It is difficult (or impossible?) to achieve those capabilities with a mission mode that leverages an LLO station.

It's bizarre how orbit requirements are changing ever faster.  I could have sworn there was a time Lagrange points were favored, then DRO, and now LLO and even a sharp elliptical orbit?  It sounds like almost anything is game now!

The only logic I can guess in orbit choice: whatever flavor of cool-aid the party in question is drinking.

If there's any hard-line limitations, I think there's truly 2 to factor in:
1) - Orion - It can't do much better than high lunar orbits, although hypothetically future missions might tweak its SM capabilities, if only because the SLS blocks 1b and 2 can lift more payload and fuel.
2) - Lunar Crust - As I'm noting other people readily mention, LLO isn't the best locale for long term orbits.  If you want the "ILS" to last as long as the ISS, you have to find a way to compensate for the mascon-induced gravity bumps and such.

The LRO's orbit seems to offer a pathway to compromise: it's in a frozen orbit (as I know people have mentioned too).  A while back (I think in the late phase of the Constellation days specifically) I recall mention of elliptical polar orbits for support sats that was a slightly more extreme variant on LRO's path - something like a 12 hour (or perhaps more) orbit.  Something like this might be a compromise between easy access to LLO and the surface and HLO and Orion (the later being a stretch with Orion's current SM).

My guess is a plan like this will follow:
1) Initially a form of high Lunar orbit is used, whether it be DRO or something else, but specifically optimized to allow Orion (and later other vehicles like Russia's planned Federation or future commercial stuff) to assemble at least the core elements.
2) After assembly, the "ILS" is transferred to an elliptical orbit; if LLO access is desired the periapsis could be at ~100km while the apoapsis is a good 1,000+ km, and like I suggest it could easily be a polar frozen orbit.
3) Depending on propellant supply, the station could be put in LLO to better support surface vehicles but at the expense of orbital rendezvous ease (outside of landers).

[Steven Pietrobon]

1) - Orion - It can't do much better than high lunar orbits, although hypothetically future missions might tweak its SM capabilities, if only because the SLS blocks 1b and 2 can lift more payload and fuel.

Orion can be put in LLO using a cryogenic propulsion stage (CPS), perhaps based on ACES. Orion returns to Earth using its SM.

2) - Lunar Crust - As I'm noting other people readily mention, LLO isn't the best locale for long term orbits.  If you want the "ILS" to last as long as the ISS, you have to find a way to compensate for the mascon-induced gravity bumps and such.

Frozen Lunar orbits avoid this problem. It should also be possible to use other orbits. Its just a matter of how much delta-V per month is required. Reducing perilune from 110 km to 15 km takes 27.6 m/s. If it takes six months to reach this orbit, that is only 4.6 m/s per month of station keeping.

[notsorandom]

This might work for their mission objectives. NASA wanted global lunar surface access and anytime return. It is difficult (or impossible?) to achieve those capabilities with a mission mode that leverages an LLO station.

The Russian system, Federatsiya and Angara-5V, should be capable of entering and leaving LLO. However they will not be ready in the early 2020s. So initially because NASA is the only agency capable of providing crew access to the station its location will be dictated by the capabilities of SLS/Orion. That might not be so bad though because LLO might not be the best place to put a station in order to support lunar surface program.

L1 and L2 have the advantage of anytime return and similar delta V requirements and flight times to pretty much anywhere on the lunar surface. I think DRO may be similar in that regard. Taking a lander from LLO means less delta V is required but the return launch windows are limited as well as the potential landing sites. The landing system departing from a beyond LLO location would have to support a higher delta V and flight time and thus with the higher requirements be harder to develop than a LLO lander like the LEM. However if a lander with some reusability could be developed then a station at an L point or DRO could allow long durations surface visits to a wide diversity of lunar sites. It would be cheaper than a surface base and much more capable than Apollo.

[B. Hendrickx]

http://tass.com/science/918631

Russsian cosmonaut reveals details about future international station in Moon’s orbit

MOSCOW, December 12. /TASS/. A future international space station that may be put in orbit around the Moon will be one-fourth or even one-fifth the size of the International Space Station currently orbiting the Earth, the chief of the Manned Programs Center at the space industry’s main research institute, cosmonaut Oleg Kotov, has told TASS.

"The discussion over plans for creating an international station in the Moon’s orbit is in the initial phase. Pre-project talks are being held by the ISS partner countries at the working group level. The purpose of the station will be to create a near-Moon infrastructure for subsequent exploration and development of the Moon. Currently the station is seen as a small visitable orbiter consisting of three or four modules in the Moon’s polar highly elliptical orbit," he said.

The International Space Station consists of fifteen modules, five of which are Russian.
Kotov said a future lunar space station will help polish technologies crucial to exploring the Moon and deep space. In particular, it may explore the Moon’s surface using rovers and landing probes.

"The lunar station is regarded as an international project and this is very good, because it would be very wrong to neglect the experience of international cooperation in designing and operating the ISS accumulated over years when the ISS life cycle is over.

Russia’s lunar plans

Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that on presidential instructions work had begun on technical documents for creating an extra-heavy space rocket that will make it possible to start creating a visitable or inhabitable research laboratory in the Moon’s orbit.

In the spring of 2016 it was announced that Russia’s Energia and the United States’ Boeing corporation were working jointly on two concepts of a lunar station - two smaller livable modules or one larger module. The current proposal is NASA’s future SLS super-heavy space rocket would be used to take lunar station components and crew to an orbit around the Moon. If the multi-modular project is selected, the modules will be launched in combination with a US spacecraft Orion (also being developed by NASA).
In either case the station will have a crew of four. The duration of space missions will last 30 to 360 days. Missions to the Moon will be dispatched once a year.

Energia’s proposal is to start creating an orbital lunar platform at the end of 2022 and to send the first crew to it in the first half of 2025. Earlier reports said Russia hoped to see its first cosmonaut on the Moon in 2031.

http://tass.ru/kosmos/3863752

In the Russian version of this TASS report, Roskosmos manned spaceflight department chief Sergei Krikalyov confirms that of the three orbits originally considered (low orbit, highly elliptical, libration point), the highly elliptical orbit is now the one being studied most closely.

[B. Hendrickx]

Anatoly Zak has posted a story on a US/European power and propulsion module that is supposed to become the first element of an international cis-lunar outpost :

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/imp-ppb.html

What completely escaped my attention is another story that he wrote for "Popular Mechanics" in early December, where he describes the assembly plans for the outpost. The plans had been outlined by William Gerstenmaier during a press conference several days earlier (quite significant because NASA officials had always been reticent about those plans). What press conference is he referring to? A quick Internet search turns up nothing. Few people seem to have picked up on this or did I miss something?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a24206/orion-nasa-space-plan/

Edit/Lar: Removed copy of entire article. (©2017 Hearst Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved).. we don't post copyrighted material without permission. Article is not behind a paywall and is interesting reading.

[fregate]

It is interesting to see the Russians are proposing a low lunar orbit of approximately 100km. Orion doesn't have the capability to enter and leave that orbit. It doesn't have enough delta V. However the spacecraft can enter and leave L2 or DRO and even bring a modest payload along. Its doubtful a station will be placed in LLO at least initially because Orion would have to be upgraded or the lunar version of the Federatsiya and Agnara-5V put into operation.

Really? How come did you come to such logical conclusion? IMHO Orion alone could not reach LLO 100 km, but with PROPERLY designed cryogenic space tug and service module it is not a problem! Please refer to ORIGINAL technical requirements for CEV/Orion/MPCV from Constellation Program.

[sdsds]

Please refer to ORIGINAL technical requirements for CEV/Orion/MPCV from Constellation Program.

Please note the complete absence of Altair or anything else like an LSAM in current NASA plans.

[brickmack]

Please refer to ORIGINAL technical requirements for CEV/Orion/MPCV from Constellation Program.

Please note the complete absence of Altair or anything else like an LSAM in current NASA plans.

There might not need to be. ACES will exist in a couple years independent of NASA involvement. IMO switching to that instead of EUS could do a lot to improve SLS: way higher performance than iCPS (still lower than EUS, to high energy orbits anyway, but decently close), long coast periods enable direct insertion at the moon, its the same diameter as iCPS so GSE changes will be a lot smaller, and its development and manufacturing will be much cheaper since ULA already needs it. Only real loss is the support for very wide payloads, but it could probably support a 6 or 7 meter fairing just fine, and 8+ meter payloads still haven't shown a compelling need to exist

[Dalhousie]

Please refer to ORIGINAL technical requirements for CEV/Orion/MPCV from Constellation Program.

Please note the complete absence of Altair or anything else like an LSAM in current NASA plans.

There might not need to be. ACES will exist in a couple years independent of NASA involvement.

I admire your certainty.

[B. Hendrickx]

Former cosmonaut Oleg Kotov said last December they have settled on what he calls a "highly elliptical polar orbit", which I understand is a near-rectilinear orbit (NRO). The advantages of that are described in this paper (referred to earlier in this thread) :

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf