The press release notes that Orbital would use their Cygnus modules as manned habitats, launched by the SLS. That's nice in that it's Orbital that's helping NASA with another option to give the SLS some missions. Problem is, as the SLS thread notes, that the LV is slow to build, underfunded, and has few initial missions slated right now. I doubt Orbital's proposal changes these conditions.
You go, "little" space launch and cargo provider and prospective space habitat supplier.
Quote from: MattMason on 05/19/2016 02:44 pmYou go, "little" space launch and cargo provider and prospective space habitat supplier.Orbital ATK is anything but "little"!The Cygnus is a great vehicle and it is nice to hear of talk of further use of it, although as always with any of these more far-reaching concepts you have to take it with a huge grain of salt. Still, good on them, and hopefully it goes further than a PR some day in the future.
"Little" was deliberately in quotes for that reason. Orbital and SNC do a lot in the field. But they're aren't in the "in-crowd" like SpaceX and ULA and want to be. I suspect they're on the verge with the right connections.
OA seems to be proposing more to use commercial launches to put them up there. So it seems less about giving SLS additional cargo launches than the potential of a destination for manned SLS/Orion launches.From a business perspective it's probably some healthy reading of the tea leaves regarding Congress' interest in habs lately.
Quote from article-"Since its inception, critics of SLS have routinely repeated the mantra of “no missions” for the largest Heavy Lift Vehicle thus-far built."Vulcan Aces could also deliver Orion to an EML-2 station if it is built. Still no need for this over sized vehicle and another yearly overhead. The HLV was sold to Americans for Mars and Lunar, not EML-2 or asteroid missions. SLS is for very wide body payloads that the smaller launchers could not deliver if we ever have such a payload beyond 8 meter diameter.An EML-2 station is a good idea. As long as it does not get in the way of getting people to the surface of Mars. Let's be smart and use Vulcan ACES to get Orion to EML-2 and or FH Dragon V2 to get crew and supplies to an EML-2 station. Both are to be commercial launch vehicle with their yearly overhead payed for by the other launches needed or wanted in the commercial sector and or other government launches.Any idea on what launch vehicle would be used to send Cygnus to EML-2?
Finally we are getting closer to something that makes sense. Orion and SLS have a destination and a more meaningful mission than the unexciting asteroid thing that has almost no traction.
Orion and SLS have a destination and a more meaningful mission than the unexciting asteroid thing that has almost no traction.
The 'hab' discussion is an exciting development.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 05/19/2016 07:49 pmFinally we are getting closer to something that makes sense. Orion and SLS have a destination and a more meaningful mission than the unexciting asteroid thing that has almost no traction.How is floating around in a "stationary" tin can in cis-lunar space more exciting than visiting a 5m boulder plunked off an asteroid?
It appears to be a less capable version of the ISS, but in a far more remote (and expensive) location.How does this help us get to Mars, which is NASA's current internal goal?
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 05/19/2016 08:12 pmQuote from article-"Since its inception, critics of SLS have routinely repeated the mantra of “no missions” for the largest Heavy Lift Vehicle thus-far built."Vulcan Aces could also deliver Orion to an EML-2 station if it is built. Still no need for this over sized vehicle and another yearly overhead. The HLV was sold to Americans for Mars and Lunar, not EML-2 or asteroid missions. SLS is for very wide body payloads that the smaller launchers could not deliver if we ever have such a payload beyond 8 meter diameter.An EML-2 station is a good idea. As long as it does not get in the way of getting people to the surface of Mars. Let's be smart and use Vulcan ACES to get Orion to EML-2 and or FH Dragon V2 to get crew and supplies to an EML-2 station. Both are to be commercial launch vehicle with their yearly overhead payed for by the other launches needed or wanted in the commercial sector and or other government launches.Any idea on what launch vehicle would be used to send Cygnus to EML-2?Rocketman, don't dispair, this is a slow walk evolution to either a lunar base or trip to Mars. slowly build up the idea and at some point someone somenwhere will say, 'Ghee all we need is a lander'I for one am very happy with the Lunar emphasis. Yes we all want to get to Mars, but the moon is so much closer and easier. Humans on Mars is still 20+ years away, best to get past LEO and baby step from there.
Quote from: GWH on 05/19/2016 08:21 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 05/19/2016 07:49 pmFinally we are getting closer to something that makes sense. Orion and SLS have a destination and a more meaningful mission than the unexciting asteroid thing that has almost no traction.How is floating around in a "stationary" tin can in cis-lunar space more exciting than visiting a 5m boulder plunked off an asteroid?1) Long term study of the effects of space radiation and mitigation methods beyond the protection provided by the Van Allen belts2) Direct teleoperation of rovers on the Lunar Surface
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/19/2016 08:28 pmIt appears to be a less capable version of the ISS, but in a far more remote (and expensive) location.How does this help us get to Mars, which is NASA's current internal goal?A cis-lunar habitat capable of long duration autonomous flight is basically a Mars transfer vehicle without a propulsion system. Gaining experience building and operating a habitat in cis-lunar space directly feeds into knowing how to build and operate a Mars transfer vehicle.
ISS is not as good of an analog. It needs resupply every few weeks and is in a different space environment.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 05/19/2016 07:49 pmFinally we are getting closer to something that makes sense. Orion and SLS have a destination and a more meaningful mission than the unexciting asteroid thing that has almost no traction.How is floating around in a "stationary" tin can* in cis-lunar space more exciting than visiting a 5m boulder plunked off an asteroid?*Hyperbole added to reflect what the general public's opinion might be.IMO this station would be a great place to bring the asteroid sample TO (and perhaps multiples), it opens the door to commercial and international use, however slim the business case might be.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 05/19/2016 07:49 pmOrion and SLS have a destination and a more meaningful mission than the unexciting asteroid thing that has almost no traction.I would think SLS and Orion supporters would not be rejecting any ideas that use the SLS and Orion...QuoteThe 'hab' discussion is an exciting development.Why?What does a cislunar habitat do for the U.S. Taxpayer?It appears to be a less capable version of the ISS, but in a far more remote (and expensive) location.How does this help us get to Mars, which is NASA's current internal goal?And if it doesn't help us to directly get to Mars, what explicit political goal is needed to justify such a sustained operation as this demands? Because flying the government-owned SLS frequently just to move cargo and crew back and forth in cislunar space seems like a waste of money after all the effort NASA has put into Commercial Cargo and Crew. It would certainly look like a backwards step.