What should NASA actually do with SLS?

[JohnFornaro]

Not having to worry about anything more than beer money is an important part of the tentative discussion.  Space Nut's list was pretty good, but I tweak it thus:

1. Robotic pre-cursor lunar missions.
   a. Ice prospecting
   b. Base location, near poles.
      (Equator will have to wait)
   c. Develop prop depots, lunar prop ISRU.
   d. Develop martian exo-biology sat/rover.
2. Lunar comsat array, in polar orbit.
   a. Include photography and prospecting.
   b. Plan sats to accomodate power gen.
   c. Develop base design, deploy lunar prop.
   d. Deploy martian exo-bio sat/rovert.
3. Deploy first prop depot.
   a. Expandable to include personell.
   b. Accomodate rotational AG.
   c. Include telescope and hotel.
   d. Design martian orbiting lab.
4. Deploy first segment of lunar base.
   a. Design LEO/Lunar tug.
   b. Develop re-usable lunar lander.
   c. Deploy first segment of ring station.
   d. Deploy lunar ISRU for metals.
5. Determine forward path for Mars.
   a. Confirm martian exobiology.
   b. Deploy martian orbiting eco-lab.
   c. Design NEO prospecting mission.
   d. Design martian mothership.

Also some thought needs to be given to what these priority numbers should mean.  Is it the start point?  A number of these items are onger lead items than others. I gave a bit of thought to this in the list above.

FWIW, natch.  And the point of SLS is?

I'm sure there might be another example of that somewhere... but where?

[Scratches head.]  Where?  Is this a trick question?

Cannot cut the fat because...

Really?  I had no idea...

But then the question is, why not just launch two separate rover missions?

And the partial answer, I would think, is, that this is a hop, step and a jump to reusable, re-ignitible landers.

[alexterrell]

Also, while Robert Lightfoot notably said "We don't need to study it anymore" he also said that it hasn't been decided what this new heavy lift rocket would actually do, once built.

Okay, what do we think NASA should do with this heavy lift capability, once deployed?

To an extent, the Senate has broken the logjam from a different direction - instead of "go do this, now what do you need", we have "various studies say this launcher is feasible, let's build that and see where it can take us".

The Senate bill also calls for another commission to decide what programme to build around SLS. AFAICT, there are only three possibilities:-

1) build really big stuff in LEO (not gonna happen)
2) Moon
3) NEO's

I think the Flexible Path / NEO's-instead-of-the-Moon has it's own set of issues, not least a lack of targets for a sustained programme, and probably rapid onset of boredom with visiting yet-another-tiny-rock.

If I got a vote (I don't) I'd say to go back to the Moon.

cheers, Martin

4) Phobos or Deimos. This has characteristics of NEOs, but:
- has more frequent launch opportunities to a single destination
- Allows Oberth and Aerocapture
- Has a nice view (helps with the boredom bit)
- Eventual goal of ISRU on Phobos/Deimos makes Mars exploration "easy"

Option 4 would get my vote if Solar Electric Propulsion on large scale (1MW) can be demonstrated.

[Robo-Nerd]

Document ISS logistical needs through 2020 (or beyond) and then ascertain how SLS can integrate (as a backstop) with commercial cargo & cargo could be the most urgent application of SLS capabilities.

An early lunar orbit mission could be added to retain a beyond LEO focus.

Since Orion was also "saved" as part of the Senate bill that "created" SLS, I would like to note that from the beginning the Orion spacecraft has been optimized for missions that are of "lunar extent" (a phrase I just coined). Basically, Orion is too big to be a LEO taxi, and too "small" (especially in mission duration) for extended missions such as to Mars (you need to bring an in-space hab module with you to really do the job). But Orion really shines for cis-lunar missions.

Helpfully, the SLS envisioned in the Senate bill (roughly equivalent to DIRECT's Jupiter J-130 with specified growth roughly equivalent to the J-246) is quite sufficient (with a second stage) to throw Orion to a lunar trajectory. So the obvious next step (in my opinion) is to establish a supply dump at one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points (EML-1 or EML-2), with EML-1 being somewhat superior vis-a-vis human mission ops from Earth (e.g. availability of free-return trajectories, etc.) So SLS should be used to establish ISS-2 at EML-1, which would serve as the gateway to the solar system in this century.

Hat Tip to Bill White: "Exploration architectures seem to be gravitating towards EML1 / EML2 assembly."

Edit: Cross-posted here ("Orion: Just Right for EML Rendezvous")
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20944.msg630611#msg630611

[Bill White]

Hat Tip to Bill White: "Exploration architectures seem to be gravitating towards EML1 / EML2 assembly."

In fairness, I pinched it from MP99. 

[space nut]

 

c. Deploy first segment of ring station. From JohnFornaro

Tell me more about your idea here. Is it for artificial gravity and beyond
lunar use ?

[Ben the Space Brit]

The thread should be what can NASA do, within the current budget

Agreed, and that could be quite limited, depending on how efficiently the project is run.

I'm going to cross-post a comment that I made on NASAWatch, mostly because I think it is relevant to this discussion.

Simply put, the vehicle's first mission will be US-indigenous crew transfer to the ISS. This is because Congress has zero confidence that "SpaceX", which appears to have become shorthand for Commercial Space for some reason, has the ability to do so in a reasonable time frame or safely. Because they do not think that a commercial spacecraft will ever meet the needs of NASA for crew transport, so a full-NASA vehicle is needed for that mission.

Just to put things in perspective, the Senate bill calls for [Orion/SLS] to be operational no later than 2016. That is beyond the far end of a second hypothetical Obama term. Only then can we seriously even start talking about the timeline for BLEO missions, even simple ones such as GEO satellite maintenance/disposal or lunar & NEO flybys and orbiters.

FWIW, I think that a lunar orbiter in 2018 (the Apollo 8 hemicenteniary) and an NEO rendezvous in 2020 are both doable. However, the latter would be a white-knuckle ride in terms of untried technology when it comes to life support and radiation mitigation.

If I were asked, I would propose only a moderate deep space plan, with the majority of BLEO missions being to an EML spacelab whose mission would be to assess exo-magnetosphere survival technologies.  It isn't exactly headline-grabbing (much like ISS), but it would produce real, tangible technologies that the headline missions would need.  It might also encourage the development of a Earth-to-Luna 'railroad' where commercial as well as government spacecraft deliver cargo to the EML station.

I should emphasise that I like the idea of Commercial Space.  However, events over the last 18-24 months have convinced me that mine is not an opinion on that subject that enjoys a great majority in Congress, if any at all.  Reaslistically, Congress is going to demand a government system to fly US astronauts to the ISS, and that means Orion/SLS.  By the next generation, confidence in commercial providers will be high enough that this won't be an issue, but it is too soon for the inheretly risk-adverse world of politics to take such a leap.

[MP99]

Hat Tip to Bill White: "Exploration architectures seem to be gravitating towards EML1 / EML2 assembly."

In fairness, I pinched it from MP99. 

In fairness, he did ask nicely. 

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

Also, while Robert Lightfoot notably said "We don't need to study it anymore" he also said that it hasn't been decided what this new heavy lift rocket would actually do, once built.

Okay, what do we think NASA should do with this heavy lift capability, once deployed?

<snip>
I think the Flexible Path / NEO's-instead-of-the-Moon has it's own set of issues, not least a lack of targets for a sustained programme, and probably rapid onset of boredom with visiting yet-another-tiny-rock.

If I got a vote (I don't) I'd say to go back to the Moon.

cheers, Martin

4) Phobos or Deimos. This has characteristics of NEOs, but:
- has more frequent launch opportunities to a single destination
- Allows Oberth and Aerocapture
- Has a nice view (helps with the boredom bit)
- Eventual goal of ISRU on Phobos/Deimos makes Mars exploration "easy"

Option 4 would get my vote if Solar Electric Propulsion on large scale (1MW) can be demonstrated.

The trouble is that NEO missions are the 3-6 month precursors for a 17-30 month Mars mission. FY11 doesn't suggest we'd be ready to undertake Mars this side of 2030, and I don't see the Senate's new proposal bringing that any closer.

cheers, Martin

[alexterrell]

The trouble is that NEO missions are the 3-6 month precursors for a 17-30 month Mars mission. FY11 doesn't suggest we'd be ready to undertake Mars this side of 2030, and I don't see the Senate's new proposal bringing that any closer.

cheers, Martin

But an NEO that can be explored in 3-6 months is unlikely to be available for many years. So only a 1-off, "flags and footprints" mission is possible (if you can make footprints on an NEO).

Now, if you move the NEO to capture it, that would be something else.

[mmealling]

In addition to asking what NASA can do with an heavy lift/SLS system, we should also be asking ourselves what happens when NASA can't deliver said vehicle in any realistic timeline/budget. IMHO, if this passes then there should be a very hard programmatic firewall between SLS development and the rest of NASA.

[RocketEconomist327]

[T]here are too many people working at NASA.

I was trying to track down just how many people actually have been employed by NASA over its history.  Would you have a good source for that?  Figures from the 60s probably aren't directly comparable to today's numbers, because a lot more work is probably done by consultants and contract workers now, but it would be interesting to see nonetheless.

Bold and Italics is mine for emphasis.

The Answer is no.  There is no source for for actual manning documents.  They are all FOUO.  Moreover, you cannot get any "real" budgets. 

It is frustrating because we cannot see where the true black holes in NASA are.  We know programs like MSL, JWST, shuttle and ISS suck up a lot of funds.  It would be nice to see salaries and outlays for said programs to see where the money is going...

...but we can't.

...and trust me, I have tried.

VR
RE327

[SpacexULA]

In addition to asking what NASA can do with an heavy lift/SLS system, we should also be asking ourselves what happens when NASA can't deliver said vehicle in any realistic timeline/budget. IMHO, if this passes then there should be a very hard programmatic firewall between SLS development and the rest of NASA.

Unfortunately we, the American people, have put ourselves in a situation where we are going to have to roll the dice.

We don't know:

-If Soyuz, Progress, HLV, or ATV will experence a stand down for some reason.
-When SLS will come online
-When Orion will come online
-When CST-100 will come online
-When Dragon will come online
-When Cygnus will come online
-When one of the only replaceable by shuttle (or modified Delta 4 heavy payload bay) parts will break.
-If we will be able to fill the payload gap.
-If NASA's budget can survive a 2-8 year HLV launch gap

There are no garentees in development work.  Shame we didn't do the development work in parrell, but at this point we are just going to have to live and learn.

[luke strawwalker]

I'd like to see them do missions with Orion in Higher earth orbits, to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, various lunar orbits; missions of increasing duration (14,21,28,56 days).... sort of a 'driving the car around the neighborhood' period ..... so that they can not only work out the bugs of the system but also have an astronaut corps that is familiar with 'flying' in cis-lunar space.

This would be the beginning of the 'Flexible Path' scenario and would be probably be affordable even if the NASA budget remained level during the 2014 to 2022 period of initial SLS operation. 

Oh, that'll certainly drum up and maintain interest... I can picture it now...

A Tom-Hanks-esque astronaut points a TV camera at himself and begins the program transmission-  "Good evening everyone, and welcome aboard Orion 13... we're speaking to you tonight from almost 200,000 miles away from the surface of the Earth, where we've just entered orbit of the Lagrange point L1... (turning to window and pointing camera outside, as it autofocuses from the shift in view) "and there it is!  L1!!  (screen goes black with a few stars visible as the camera comes into focus-- crickets chirping can be heard in mission control) 

(Quiet voices can be heard in the background from mission control, urging the astronaut to return the view to inside the Orion)  "Well, uh, there you have it!  Here's wishing all of you back on Earth, uh, a pleasant evening!" 

Oh ya that'll REALLY get everybody hot and bothered!!!  (not saying it doesn't serve a purpose, but REALLY does anybody honestly think this'll cut the mustard more than once??) 

I'm all for a fiscally responsible HLV (not a super-duper uber-booster) and a safe Orion, conducting a flex-path type program as we can afford it, hopefully ramping up to a return to the moon to do some REAL SCIENCE this time, and doing the precursor work for a Mars landing as we can afford it... I don't see a Mars landing for at LEAST 20 years, simply based on affordability.   Phobos or Mars cycler type mission, hopefully with surface realtime telepresence, MAYBE... but it's probably off scale right on the chart timeline right now...

But, ya gotta have a cow before you can start making milk...

Later!  OL JR

[RocketEconomist327]

The thread should be what can NASA do, within the current budget

+1

I do not have any faith, ZERO CONFIDENCE, in any numbers that come out of the 9th floor.  They have consistently shown they cannot have a project come in even remotely close to being on budget.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Think about it, for the cost of about two months of the shuttle program (~200 Million A MONTH) SpaceX has built two distinct launch vehicles.  They do not have the "standing army"... although they are starting to raise one.

Yes, and those two launch vehicles are in the Athena/Delta II range using mature technologies, even the orbiter with its small volume capacity lifts much more in the payload bay, apples to oranges comparison.

[sdsds]

Lori Garver recently said, "Let me be clear--we drive capabilities by doing missions."  But nowhere in her speech did she mention SLS.  She did say, "Some day people will be inspired by pictures in high def from a robot lander somewhere we've never before been. We will have human missions to an asteroid. And test flights of the new technologies we are going to develop. I don't think the public has lost interest in space. But I do think we need to better show them what's new and exciting about it."

Personally I think she has this almost right.  I think very soon the public will crave reassurance that NASA is still capable of carrying out the kinds of missions for which it is famous.

MSL will help with that -- but spaceflight is a high risk endeavor, and it's a mistake to put too many eggs in one basket.  Moreover, the public will want to see what the SLS system can achieve; MSL obviously doesn't demonstrate that.

That's why I hope NASA will use an early SLS flight for a BEO mission, even with an "improvised" upper stage.  This isn't to say a full sized ACES-style upper stage isn't needed!  The vision provided by the J-241H Lunar Cargo Launch Vehicle Configuration is where NASA will likely be headed long-term.

But to keep the public from become discouraged about NASA may well require something like a lunar surface soft landing before J-241H is available.

Also, not all the NASA exploration budget can go into launch vehicle stages!  Some needs to go into robotic spacecraft, as was intended with the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program.  Retaining and building that workforce skillset is important too!

The Delta-IV 5m upper stage is the logical choice, possibly supplemented with a third stage for lunar orbit insertion and/or descent braking.  Even if the payload were no bigger or more capable than a MER, a lunar Spirit or Opportunity equivalent would provide the public with a huge morale boost!

[Namechange User]

We have the money... You could EASILY accomplish all of this on 20 Billion a year over a seven to 12 year cycle.  Only problem is there are too many people working at NASA.  NASA is not a space agency right now, it is a jobs program.

Another problem is politics.  Actually, that is the biggest problem, maybe.  Cannot cut the fat because the "distinguished gentleman" from Alabama will throw a conniption fit; even if his center is not performing.

Think about it, for the cost of about two months of the shuttle program (~200 Million A MONTH) SpaceX has built two distinct launch vehicles.  They do not have the "standing army"... although they are starting to raise one.

VR
RE327

This is a really tired arguement.  Not only is a bit insulting yet it is also one of the "uninformed" who constantly want to compare completely different entities. 

It also incorretly assumes people do nothing inbetween flights and gives them a bit of a deragatory label with implications behind that label. 

It assumes, in the case of SpaceX, that they are heading down the same "evil path" and that for some reason, regardless of if it is government or private enterprise, that having people employed is not worthwhile and that workforce should be discarded between publicly noticed events.  As if no one does anything else between.....

It's really sad that after years some people just do not get it or refuse to get it.  Instead they fall back on misunderstandings, mischaracterizations and insults.

Please enjoy the rest of your day.  I will check in every now and then when I feel I need to be amused further. 

[RocketEconomist327]

This is a really tired arguement.  Not only is a bit insulting yet it is also one of the "uninformed" who constantly want to compare completely different entities.

It is not insulting.  It is the fiscal reality.  The uninformed of which you speak is at KSC, JSC, JPL, or LRC.  It is also those people with a vote, and those who work for them.  The uninformed are those who also continue to refuse the fiscal reality of today.  They long for yesteryear when NASA was getting much more of the GDP and projects didn't require fiscal responsibility. 

It also incorretly assumes people do nothing inbetween flights and gives them a bit of a deragatory label with implications behind that label.

That is your interpretation.  Not mine.  I know exactly how hard people work.  I know hard I work.  People who have seen my posts know exactly how I feel about the people who turn the wrenches and do the math.  It is not their problem, but the people appointed above them.   

It assumes, in the case of SpaceX, that they are heading down the same "evil path" and that for some reason, regardless of if it is government or private enterprise, that having people employed is not worthwhile and that workforce should be discarded between publicly noticed events.  As if no one does anything else between.....

No one knows for sure where SpaceX will end up (except Jim).  SpaceX runs lean which economists and bean counters like.  It is true they are growing in a down economy (that is a good thing).  It is also true, depending on how things go, they could turn into something many of us do not want.

It's really sad that after years some people just do not get it or refuse to get it.  Instead they fall back on misunderstandings, mischaracterizations and insults.

I know... trust me I know.  So many mid level managers, directors, and leaders in NASA still do not get that there are congressmen/women and senators who would, if they could; cut NASA in half or get rid of it all together shifting the mission to "global change monitoring" and ruin NASA's history.

They are out there.  They exist.  Some overtly but more are covert.  People who excuse away all of the accomplishments of SpaceX, DIRECT, ect do not realize that this really is a huge crossroads.  One that if we do not correctly cross, could spell a serious gap in US Spaceflight, not to mention handing over the reigns of space leadership to Russia and eventually China.

But some people (you) do not understand that.  You see the world through your prism and that is ok.  We need experts like you.  7,000 people will be without a job within 12 months.  That is the reality.  How do we recoup that?  How do we not only recoup that but come back stronger?  Could we keep the shuttle flying with two flights a year for under 100 million a month?  I know some who think it could happen.  Most dismiss it.

Please enjoy the rest of your day.  I will check in every now and then when I feel I need to be amused further.

I shall, OU plays tonight at 7pm.  I plan to get a Chicago stuffed pizza with peperoni, sausage, onions, mushroom, and green peppers with some Sweet Water 420 Blue.

You can hate me, discredit me, call me ill or uninformed all you like.  But I know what people with "a vote" are thinking.  I know where a "few" stand.  And frankly, it is scary to think where we could be heading in just three or for weeks from now.

VR
RE327

[Namechange User]

This is a really tired arguement.  Not only is a bit insulting yet it is also one of the "uninformed" who constantly want to compare completely different entities.

It is not insulting.  It is the fiscal reality.  The uninformed of which you speak is at KSC, JSC, JPL, or LRC.  It is also those people with a vote, and those who work for them.  The uninformed are those who also continue to refuse the fiscal reality of today.  They long for yesteryear when NASA was getting much more of the GDP and projects didn't require fiscal responsibility. 

It also incorretly assumes people do nothing inbetween flights and gives them a bit of a deragatory label with implications behind that label.

That is your interpretation.  Not mine.  I know exactly how hard people work.  I know hard I work.  People who have seen my posts know exactly how I feel about the people who turn the wrenches and do the math.  It is not their problem, but the people appointed above them.   

It assumes, in the case of SpaceX, that they are heading down the same "evil path" and that for some reason, regardless of if it is government or private enterprise, that having people employed is not worthwhile and that workforce should be discarded between publicly noticed events.  As if no one does anything else between.....

No one knows for sure where SpaceX will end up (except Jim).  SpaceX runs lean which economists and bean counters like.  It is true they are growing in a down economy (that is a good thing).  It is also true, depending on how things go, they could turn into something many of us do not want.

It's really sad that after years some people just do not get it or refuse to get it.  Instead they fall back on misunderstandings, mischaracterizations and insults.

I know... trust me I know.  So many mid level managers, directors, and leaders in NASA still do not get that there are congressmen/women and senators who would, if they could; cut NASA in half or get rid of it all together shifting the mission to "global change monitoring" and ruin NASA's history.

They are out there.  They exist.  Some overtly but more are covert.  People who excuse away all of the accomplishments of SpaceX, DIRECT, ect do not realize that this really is a huge crossroads.  One that if we do not correctly cross, could spell a serious gap in US Spaceflight, not to mention handing over the reigns of space leadership to Russia and eventually China.

But some people (you) do not understand that.  You see the world through your prism and that is ok.  We need experts like you.  7,000 people will be without a job within 12 months.  That is the reality.  How do we recoup that?  How do we not only recoup that but come back stronger?  Could we keep the shuttle flying with two flights a year for under 100 million a month?  I know some who think it could happen.  Most dismiss it.

Please enjoy the rest of your day.  I will check in every now and then when I feel I need to be amused further.

I shall, OU plays tonight at 7pm.  I plan to get a Chicago stuffed pizza with peperoni, sausage, onions, mushroom, and green peppers with some Sweet Water 420 Blue.

You can hate me, discredit me, call me ill or uninformed all you like.  But I know what people with "a vote" are thinking.  I know where a "few" stand.  And frankly, it is scary to think where we could be heading in just three or for weeks from now.

VR
RE327

What?

I want to say..."yawn".

I do not get your latest rant and how you marry that up with what you said above.  You called it a "standing army" and all that implies, not me.  You claimed all the could be done if SpaceX had that money, even though they are apples and organges with what you are comparing.  Not me.

You then further try to call me out by saying "you" as if you know me.  Do you know me?  Do you have any direct experience with me?  Are you credible enough to speak for what "I" stand for?  I have no "ill-will" against SpaceX, why the hell would I?  I have not spoken out against SpaceX or any other "commercial" firm?  Why would I?  I have been quite consistent, in multiple forums beyond the internet, with that. 

I do not "hate you", etc.  I called out a nonsense post.  You just happened to be the person that wrote it and then tried to counter with something completely different.

I await your reply. 

[HappyMartian]

I posted this on the DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 5 - Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System

This is a more appropriate thread. It is likely someone has noted this Bigelow artificial g idea elsewhere on this website or the Internet. Please let me know where.

It would be good to discuss some ideas for missions of the early flights of the J-130/SLS/Orion. 

I was rereading the Plymouth Rock white paper by Lockheed today since it was posted on another site. In it they suggest using two Orions docked together to explore a near Earth asteroid. One thing that really jumped out at me was how the authors continued to say that much more capability (propellant, and equipment) could be brought into the mission if they could launch a crewed Orion on a larger rocket then a Delta IV or Ares I. I know it is pretty early to discuss BEO missions with the Jupiter/SLS but would this be a good way to do an asteroid or does the Jupiter offer an even better architecture?

And a slightly different option would be to have two Orions docked at opposite ends of a long bigelow inflatable tunnel module. This spacecraft/station could allow us to get some valuable artificial g experience in low Earth orbit. The Orions and Bigelow module could form a relatively simple rotating spacecraft/station that could be placed in an orbit fifty miles behind the ISS.

Before we go anywhere BEO we need to have some serious long-term research on the consequences of various levels of artificial g. The J-130/SLS could lift the two Orions and the Bigelow module could possibly fly on an Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, or Taurus II. A Russian, European, or Chinese launch of the Bigelow might also be viable. Depending on the weight of the Bigelow module and length of the initial mission, you might be able to launch everything on one J-130/SLS.

If the inflatable Bigelow module is wide enough, the rotating station can check out the effects of a shorter radius and lower artificial g on two of the astronauts at the same time. With one astronaut in each Orion, and the remaining two astronauts staying at different "levels" in the long tunnel Bigelow module, you should be able to get some interesting and useful artificial g data. Mission lengths could vary from one month to two years. The second mission wouldn't need to orbit another Orion, so instead a supply module would be launched underneath the Orion on the J-130/SLS. Some missions might only have a crew of two or three astronauts. Exercise patterns and durations on the initial missions would be similar for all four astronauts. Later and longer missions might try a wide variety of exercise programs. 

The artificial g missions alone could use two or more J-130/SLS per year for several years.


Also, a similar rotating dual Orion/Bigelow spacecraft asteroid mission would offer redundant and robust rentry options from two standard Orions, larger down mass opportunities for returning samples, more supplies, a useful artificial g force, a radiation shelter in part of the Bigelow module, and might be a doable modification to the Lockheed Plymouth Rock mission.

If an appropriate long cylindrical module could be designed by Bigelow for joining two Orion spacecraft, what kind of length and width would you recommend?

Would 5 meters width by 20 meters length be reasonable?

What about 5 meters width by 50 meters length?

What about 5 meters width by 100 meters length?

Could various versions of a basic long cylindrical module have different lengths?

Such a Bigelow module would need additional docking ports and solar power systems. Could those systems be somewhat similar to the systems that will be used on the Orion spacecraft?

What would be different and what would need to be the same as what is on the current Bigelow modules?

Using such a spacecraft for missions to small NEOs would require extra delta-v that might be provided by an additional propulsion module with an Aerojet AJ-10 rocket engine and propellant tanks that are somewhat like the second stage of the Delta II rocket or possibly like a long extended Orion Service Module...

This combination of two standard Orions/Bigelow module/additional propulsion module would offer some useful and affordable work for the J-130/SLS/Orion and allow early and robust missions to small NEOs. Without the additional propulsion module, the two standard Orions/Bigelow module spacecraft would allow us to begin some needed long-term artificial g experiments with astronauts and/or small animals.


See:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ssc/Orion/Toolkit/OrionAsteroidMissionWhitePaperAug2010.pdf

Edited.

Cheers!