-
Boeing outlines new modules/technologies for Near Earth Asteroid missions
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Mar, 2012 21:12
-
-
#1
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 08 Mar, 2012 21:36
-
So, it looks like super-sized SEP is the direction in which those in the know are leaning. Watching a set of solar arrays that big floating through the night would probably be quite the sight!
I wonder if a rigid composite hull for habitat modules might be an idea that will also gain traction. It has an advantage over both rigid metal and inflatable composite in that it has improved radiation protection and can launch in a mission-ready configuration - no need for outfitting flights before the main mission.
-
#2
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Mar, 2012 21:41
-
Great article! Really, really great stuff in there.
Are we sure we aren't conflating habitable with pressurized volume for some of the comparisons?
Also, is there a link to the actual presentation somewhere, L2 or otherwise?
-
#3
by
BrightLight
on 08 Mar, 2012 21:57
-
Great article Chris
What level of storm will the shelter help protect the astronauts - is the water and polystyrene enough, how thick are these walls - does the briefing go into enough detail to evaluate the shelter?
-
#4
by
BrightLight
on 08 Mar, 2012 22:01
-
-
#5
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 08 Mar, 2012 22:20
-
Great article! Really, really great stuff in there.
Are we sure we aren't conflating habitable with pressurized volume for some of the comparisons?
Also, is there a link to the actual presentation somewhere, L2 or otherwise?
"Pressurized volume by crewmember" is what the presentation states. All numbers used in the article come from the same page of the presentation.
-
#6
by
BrightLight
on 08 Mar, 2012 22:21
-
-
#7
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Mar, 2012 22:22
-
Great article Chris
What level of storm will the shelter help protect the astronauts - is the water and polystyrene enough, how thick are these walls - does the briefing go into enough detail to evaluate the shelter?
An inch or two of polyethylene or water would be enough to shield from the very worst solar storms so there's no chance of acute radiation sickness:
http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=56&dpg=13(The diagram assumes aluminum, but polyethylene is better.)
And thanks for the link!
Really interesting.
-
#8
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Mar, 2012 22:23
-
Great article! Really, really great stuff in there.
Are we sure we aren't conflating habitable with pressurized volume for some of the comparisons?
Also, is there a link to the actual presentation somewhere, L2 or otherwise?
"Pressurized volume by crewmember" is what the presentation states. All numbers used in the article come from the same page of the presentation.
Yes, that's clearer now that I'm looking at the presentation itself.
Thanks.
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Mar, 2012 22:46
-
-
#10
by
TrueBlueWitt
on 08 Mar, 2012 23:06
-
-
#11
by
Blackjax
on 09 Mar, 2012 00:21
-
"This new propulsion system would be gradually developed over the next 10 years, with a demonstration flight capable of readiness by 2014."
I'm not so good at math but I am suspecting that there may be an accidental '1' in place of a '2' in that analysis.
-
#12
by
BrightLight
on 09 Mar, 2012 00:46
-
Her is the Boeing brief on building up the Exploration Platform at the ISS
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604659main_6%20-%20Panel%203_Raftery_Final.pdf
This and the exploration mission profiles are based on 130t SLS(based on "3rd" stage references)? If so.. why? given 130t SLS will be available far later(if ever) than timelines estimated here..
Looking at the presentations, I suspect
1. That building up the solar arrays for the 300+KW power system could use a full up SLS and
2. That Boeing would want to sell the most hardware it can
For what it's worth, I don't see why the Exploration System could not be built with several Block 1 SLS LV's
-
#13
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:09
-
"This new propulsion system would be gradually developed over the next 10 years, with a demonstration flight capable of readiness by 2014."
I'm not so good at math but I am suspecting that there may be an accidental '1' in place of a '2' in that analysis.
No, those two are not mutually exclusive. The presentation shows a demo using one of two existing satellite bus, with up to ~100kW with the Boeing 702 bus.
-
#14
by
robertross
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:21
-
Wow, great article Chris G!
Great seeing the inclusion of JAXA & ISS throughout, especially:
"This is due in no small part to the amazing enhancements and knowledge of the ECLSS systems needed to sustain a crew – knowledge that has been gained through the permanent habitation of the International Space Station."
You learn by doing.
Now you got me all excited!
-
#15
by
robertross
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:37
-
Her is the Boeing brief on building up the Exploration Platform at the ISS
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604659main_6%20-%20Panel%203_Raftery_Final.pdf
Thanks for the link. Interesting read.
Of note:
"Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to
occur over a period of several years while MPCV
and SLS development are being completed"
To make that happen, (to me, in a real world) we are looking at supporting ISS beyond 2020.
Reason: funding.
-
#16
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:46
-
Her is the Boeing brief on building up the Exploration Platform at the ISS
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604659main_6%20-%20Panel%203_Raftery_Final.pdf
Thanks for the link. Interesting read.
Of note:
"Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to
occur over a period of several years while MPCV
and SLS development are being completed"
To make that happen, (to me, in a real world) we are looking at supporting ISS beyond 2020.
Reason: funding.
We were probably going to do that anyway.
-
#17
by
Robert Thompson
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:50
-
NSF, you are a Spitfire putting out the lead.
-
#18
by
hydra9
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:53
-
Great article! But I don't think it really makes a satisfactory case as to why a manned asteroid mission is required at all before sending humans directly into Mars orbit in order to explore and to exploit the moons of Mars for water, air, and fuel production-- and to set things up for future landings on the Martian surface.
A NEO asteroid mission is actually more dangerous than going to Mars since it requires a year of traveling in interplanetary space before finally returning back to the relative safety of properly radiation shielded facilities located within cis-lunar space. Similar safe facilities, like simple radiation shielded Bigelow space stations, could be placed permanently into high Mars orbit by the SLS before astronauts are sent to Mars. And such Mars orbital facilities could be easily expanded and upgraded. Also simple rotating facilities with a pair of radiation shielded habitat modules at the end of a lengthy boom could also be deployed into Mars orbit by the SLS; such facilities would produce artificial gravity, allowing indefinite stays by astronauts in Mars orbit.
Solar or nuclear powered water, air, and fuel manufacturing facilities could also be deployed on Deimos by the SLS before the first humans arrive which could also facilitate prolonged stays by human visitors.
So astronauts could be on their way to a safe facility in less than 269 days for a Mars journey and less than 200 days to safe facilities back in cis-lunar space on their way back from Mars-- rather than 365 continuously dangerous days during an asteroid adventure.
We would also learn a lot more about various NEO asteroids from several unmanned asteroid missions than from any single manned mission to a NEO asteroid-- and probably at a substantially lower cost.
Marcel F. Williams
-
#19
by
robertross
on 09 Mar, 2012 02:54
-
Her is the Boeing brief on building up the Exploration Platform at the ISS
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604659main_6%20-%20Panel%203_Raftery_Final.pdf
Thanks for the link. Interesting read.
Of note:
"Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to
occur over a period of several years while MPCV
and SLS development are being completed"
To make that happen, (to me, in a real world) we are looking at supporting ISS beyond 2020.
Reason: funding.
We were probably going to do that anyway.
Well it took Canada long enough (up until this week) to buy into (up to)2020, so you never know
But yeah, probably (or major disaster/failure, whichever comes first)
