-
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)
-
#20
by
A_M_Swallow
on 09 Mar, 2012 03:43
-
"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.
The article is talking about a 30kW SEP flying in 2 years time (2014) rather than 6 years a different thread mentioned a few days ago. This is great news and very fast.
-
#21
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 09 Mar, 2012 04:29
-
I don't see any Orion module attached to the habitat. The Orion stays at the L-2 gateway. I presume solar electric propulsion is used to transfer back to the gateway and then Orion's service module provides the propulsion back to Earth.
-
#22
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 04:52
-
I don't see any Orion module attached to the habitat. The Orion stays at the L-2 gateway. I presume solar electric propulsion is used to transfer back to the gateway and then Orion's service module provides the propulsion back to Earth.
Yes, that's what I see, too!
It's nice to see Boeing consider a very minimalist architecture, since I think that sort of thinking (which was CRITICAL in Apollo's success, IMHO) will help us afford and actually execute new beyond-LEO exploration missions.
-
#23
by
Proponent
on 09 Mar, 2012 06:29
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
-
#24
by
QuantumG
on 09 Mar, 2012 06:33
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
Heh, "Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to occur over a period of several years while MPCV and SLS development are being completed" indicates clearly that they're unaware that all the budget is being consumed doing MPCV/SLS. Or just in denial.. which is not unusual at all.
-
#25
by
woods170
on 09 Mar, 2012 06:35
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
Heh, "Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to occur over a period of several years while MPCV and SLS development are being completed" indicates clearly that they're unaware that all the budget is being consumed doing MPCV/SLS. Or just in denial.. which is not unusual at all.
My thoughts exactly.
Where's the funding? Answer: it does not exist.
All-in-all this is just another Powerpoint dream.
-
#26
by
apace
on 09 Mar, 2012 07:30
-
I don't see any Orion module attached to the habitat. The Orion stays at the L-2 gateway. I presume solar electric propulsion is used to transfer back to the gateway and then Orion's service module provides the propulsion back to Earth.
Yes, that's what I see, too!
It's nice to see Boeing consider a very minimalist architecture, since I think that sort of thinking (which was CRITICAL in Apollo's success, IMHO) will help us afford and actually execute new beyond-LEO exploration missions.
Huh? If such a mission is viable without a MPCV, why we develop Orion? If it's not needed, we can use this funding for the deep space infrastructure and getting this package together before the end of this decade...
-
#27
by
QuantumG
on 09 Mar, 2012 07:33
-
Huh? If such a mission is viable without a MPCV, why we develop Orion? If it's not needed, we can use this funding for the deep space infrastructure and getting this package together before the end of this decade...
Because it's a "fact" that you need a "big" rocket and a "big" capsule to go BEO. Don't you know the facts?!
-
#28
by
apace
on 09 Mar, 2012 07:40
-
Huh? If such a mission is viable without a MPCV, why we develop Orion? If it's not needed, we can use this funding for the deep space infrastructure and getting this package together before the end of this decade...
Because it's a "fact" that you need a "big" rocket and a "big" capsule to go BEO. Don't you know the facts?!
I'm still looking to download the solid plan, from which the NASA Administrators talks all the time. Perhaps there I can find the answer.
-
#29
by
Davinator
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:28
-
Great article. This is a very exciting and viable proposal.
No, I don't buy into the the usual handful of posters who continue to infect the threads by posting far too many times for their own good with lies about how there's no money. They always fail, and fail hard on how SLS and Orion are CHEAPER than Shuttle was per year.
I hope people don't listen to lies.
-
#30
by
CitabriaFlyer
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:29
-
Can the NEA spacecraft with all of those solar wings be lofted with one SLS flight?
Does SLS send the ship to EML2 via a chemical 3rd stage or does SLS boost to LEO and then the spacecraft spirals to EML2 with its electric thrusters?
How many pounds of xenon does it take to move a ship that size from EML-2 to the NEA back to EML-2?
-
#31
by
QuantumG
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:32
-
No, I don't buy into the the usual handful of posters who continue to infect the threads by posting far too many times for their own good with lies about how there's no money. They always fail, and fail hard on how SLS and Orion are CHEAPER than Shuttle was per year.
Read above silly.. we're talking about Boeing's suggestion that this puppy could be built
at the same time as SLS/MPCV. Surely you don't think there's a budget profile for that, do you?
-
#32
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:37
-
NSF, you are a Spitfire putting out the lead.
Heh, thanks! Appreciate the Spitfire reference too! (Great plane).
-
#33
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:38
-
Great article. This is a very exciting and viable proposal.
No, I don't buy into the the usual handful of posters who continue to infect the threads by posting far too many times for their own good with lies about how there's no money. They always fail, and fail hard on how SLS and Orion are CHEAPER than Shuttle was per year.
I hope people don't listen to lies.
Easy tiger, it's a forum thread for the article.
Readers are entitled to an opinion once they've read it.
Some opinions will be good, some will be bad, some will be insightful, some will be "OMGZ!"
Welcome to the internet!
-
#34
by
Davinator
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:54
-
OK!
But you must get tired of a few people just posting "no money for it"?
-
#35
by
MATTBLAK
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:59
-
Almost as tired as I am - for a multitude of reasons...
-
#36
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Mar, 2012 11:06
-
OK! But you must get tired of a few people just posting "no money for it"?
Don't want this to digress, so let me answer that and then we can all talk about the article.
Look, I'm no fan of negativity, that's just how I am. But "no money for it" is more realism (maybe, maybe not, but money is a problem) than negativity - the difference between "Boring, never gonna happen" and "Cool, but never gonna happen"
This one is viable for a write up as this Exploration Platform plan is building internally, and it's our duty to report the content surrounding it. Also, we've never been about cost on this site, we're more about the hardware.
What upsets me the most is when people don't care either way. All I want is for people to read the articles and comment on them with debate. Such as there was a recent Orion article, which did gain a lot of readers, but the associated thread was a few "nice article" comments and that was it. That's a bit boring to be honest.
A good civil debate with counter views and such might result in us all learning something.
-
#37
by
MATTBLAK
on 09 Mar, 2012 11:26
-
If a re-elected Obama or newly-elected Romney can be persuaded to push funding for SEP, Habitats, modules etc, I think that Nelson, Hutchinson, Mikulski etc and the other usual suspects will get behind it. That's cautious hope and optimism - but tethered in my case by - "Nice to have, but will the budget Hawks go for it?"
Or the negatives who say (or whine): "Meh - none of this is
ever gonna happen..." (
And sadly, they could have a point).
But I know which frame of mind and future
I'm going to hope/push for!!
-
#38
by
MATTBLAK
on 09 Mar, 2012 11:35
-
NSF, you are a Spitfire putting out the lead.
Heh, thanks! Appreciate the Spitfire reference too! (Great plane).
(I hope Chris wont mind). My 'local' Spitfire. I love how they keep these old birds flying.
-
#39
by
Namechange User
on 09 Mar, 2012 14:23
-
I think that Nelson, Hutchinson, Mikulski etc and the other usual suspects will get behind it.
Hutchinson is retiring this year from the Senate. Nelson may not win re-election.
-
#40
by
FinalFrontier
on 09 Mar, 2012 15:07
-
An absolutely fascinating article chris thank you for the update.
I'll just be happier if SLS flys first...........
-
#41
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 16:24
-
An absolutely fascinating article chris thank you for the update.
I'll just be happier if SLS flys first...........
I hope it can be done in parallel.
-
#42
by
mikegro
on 09 Mar, 2012 19:02
-
Excellent article! I'm also very intrigued how the presentation seems to show Orion staying at the Exploration Platform which suggests returning there after visiting the NEA. This parallels the lunar first architecture with reusable lander and would then lead to the possibility of a reusable SEP powered NEA exploration vehicle that parks at the EP.
So, I guess the debate is EML1 vs. EML2? Sounds like EML2 is best for NEA, but is EML1 better for lunar access or is EML2 a better compromise? Or could you move the EP between the two depending on the mission timeline?
Very cool stuff to ponder, and I'm glad to see some brilliant out-of-the-box thinking coming from Boeing here.
-Mike
-
#43
by
Pheogh
on 09 Mar, 2012 19:13
-
Excellent article! I'm also very intrigued how the presentation seems to show Orion staying at the Exploration Platform which suggests returning there after visiting the NEA. This parallels the lunar first architecture with reusable lander and would then lead to the possibility of a reusable SEP powered NEA exploration vehicle that parks at the EP.
So, I guess the debate is EML1 vs. EML2? Sounds like EML2 is best for NEA, but is EML1 better for lunar access or is EML2 a better compromise? Or could you move the EP between the two depending on the mission timeline?
Very cool stuff to ponder, and I'm glad to see some brilliant out-of-the-box thinking coming from Boeing here.
-Mike
It does beg the question though,.. when will we see something out of John Shannon's group?
-
#44
by
baldusi
on 09 Mar, 2012 19:34
-
Is it my impression or are the usual big contractors sort of converging on an EML1/2 staging base, SEP transport for beyond LEO and using ISS legacy systems? I'm interested if those are the big pushes now, which might be the consensus as the SLS/MPCV start getting developed. In other words, there's some money to up the TRL of some technologies, this might make them prioritize ECLSS/SEP technologies. And it might help the ESA partners pay their share of the ISS with modules and systems. Flat budgets won't last forever.
-
#45
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 19:44
-
Excellent article! I'm also very intrigued how the presentation seems to show Orion staying at the Exploration Platform which suggests returning there after visiting the NEA. This parallels the lunar first architecture with reusable lander and would then lead to the possibility of a reusable SEP powered NEA exploration vehicle that parks at the EP.
So, I guess the debate is EML1 vs. EML2? Sounds like EML2 is best for NEA, but is EML1 better for lunar access or is EML2 a better compromise? Or could you move the EP between the two depending on the mission timeline?
Very cool stuff to ponder, and I'm glad to see some brilliant out-of-the-box thinking coming from Boeing here.
-Mike
Have to agree... Really amazing stuff, here. And it assumes a pretty easy step to reusability for the most expensive elements (i.e. the mission hardware) from the get-go. You could just start with a NEA mission, then park the hardware at EML1/2 after the mission is over. Add a lunar lander, park it at EML1/2 after the mission is over. (If you have enough docking ports, etc...) You can retain the capability after the mission is over, just needing a refueling or another modified DIV upper stage plus crew (for a Moon mission, that could all be launched on a single SLS, and possibly for a NEA mission as well).
It's really a great idea.
A similar exploration gateway place in Mars orbit (via SEP slow-boat) could support a reusable Mars architecture as well.
I really hope it means that throwing away expensive mission hardware every time is basically over. Better to get two or even three decades of use out of it, first.
-
#46
by
USFdon
on 09 Mar, 2012 19:45
-
Just a quick question to the blogosphere.... since most of these technologies / modules either exist already or are "relatively" ready to go, what are the show stoppers from making this happen? Zvezda 2, habitation module, Soyuz BLEO capibility? In the presentation it seems that they are hinting to an orbital sciences' Cygnus based (on the Italian manufactured) habitation module or a Bigelow BA330 inflatable thing. Is this the beginning of ISS part two with cobbled together components from government launched Russian, NASA and ESA stuff to make a viable BEO station in these financial hard times. These are interesting times in the space race, that's for sure.
-
#47
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 19:59
-
Just a quick question to the blogosphere.... since most of these technologies / modules either exist already or are "relatively" ready to go, what are the show stoppers from making this happen? Zvezda 2, habitation module, Soyuz BLEO capibility? In the presentation it seems that they are hinting to an orbital sciences' Cygnus based (on the Italian manufactured) habitation module or a Bigelow BA330 inflatable thing. Is this the beginning of ISS part two with cobbled together components from government launched Russian, NASA and ESA stuff to make a viable BEO station in these financial hard times. These are interesting times in the space race, that's for sure.
I'd say the show stopper right now is Congress. They hold the purse strings, and it remains to be seen if they will pay for actual exploration (versus the carefully zip code-engineered SLS, etc). This plan has a pretty good chance, IMHO, since it is 1) being proposed by Boeing and already has growing support inside NASA 2) Makes use of SLS and Orion 3) makes use of ISS 4) can gain the support of the Moon-first, Mars-first, and NEA-first groups 5) it can be sold as just "making do with what we already have" (whether or not that's necessarily cheaper) 5) looks like it enables reusable hardware instead of "just throwing stuff away" (wehter or not that's necessarily cheaper) and 6) is flexible enough that it could make use of something like commercial cargo and/or commercial crew in the future along with "game-changing technologies" like high-power SEP and even propellant depots.
It ties all the NASA HSF interests together in a pretty interesting manner (in other words, it may be even better at being zip-code engineered than even SLS). I like it because it doesn't put either SLS or Orion on the critical path BUT it also doesn't threaten them by making them irrelevant, which would make getting it past key Congressional members almost impossible (SLS and Orion are needed for getting to the Exploration Gateway). In other words, if SLS or Orion are canceled or replaced, the whole architecture doesn't have to fall apart (though we may have to have Orion do LEO rendezvous with a pre-launched EDS to get to the Exploration gateway or modify Dragon or CST-100 for cislunar flight, all things which are probably feasible if push come to shove). Also, the International aspect is interesting and may also keep the program alive in case of budget constraints or a launch failure.
This is a much more realistic architecture than the usual "Battlestar Galactica" style DRMs that never, ever leave powerpoint, IMO.
-
#48
by
mikegro
on 09 Mar, 2012 20:14
-
Looking more closely at the presentation, slide 17 shows the mission departing from EML2, but a year later near the end of the mission arrival at EML1. This seems to suggest that the Exploration Platform moves from EML2 to EML1 in the meantime.
Fascinating.
-
#49
by
A_M_Swallow
on 09 Mar, 2012 20:37
-
{snip}
So, I guess the debate is EML1 vs. EML2? Sounds like EML2 is best for NEA, but is EML1 better for lunar access or is EML2 a better compromise? Or could you move the EP between the two depending on the mission timeline?
On trips to an NEA the difference between EML-1 and EML-2 is tiny. The NEA will just use which ever spacestation the lunar mission people choose to build.
-
#50
by
Namechange User
on 09 Mar, 2012 20:40
-
Just a quick question to the blogosphere.... since most of these technologies / modules either exist already or are "relatively" ready to go, what are the show stoppers from making this happen? Zvezda 2, habitation module, Soyuz BLEO capibility? In the presentation it seems that they are hinting to an orbital sciences' Cygnus based (on the Italian manufactured) habitation module or a Bigelow BA330 inflatable thing. Is this the beginning of ISS part two with cobbled together components from government launched Russian, NASA and ESA stuff to make a viable BEO station in these financial hard times. These are interesting times in the space race, that's for sure.
The showstopper is not Congress alone. The showstopper is a lack of integrated strategy. What this proposal represents is a potential tactical execution of a possibile strategy.
What needs to happen is NASA, nobody else, must formally decide *what* it is to do and answer the subordinate questions from there, such as *how* and *when*.
The answers to those questions allow an informed discussion with Congress and other stakeholders in order to come to integrated conclusion and a somewhat iterative approach where NASA can say I need money for "this" and Congress, etc can approve or not and say I can give you "this amount".
Eventually these iterations converge, but it all must start with NASA.
-
#51
by
muomega0
on 09 Mar, 2012 21:48
-
Just a quick question to the blogosphere.... since most of these technologies / modules either exist already or are "relatively" ready to go, what are the show stoppers from making this happen? Zvezda 2, habitation module, Soyuz BLEO capibility? In the presentation it seems that they are hinting to an orbital sciences' Cygnus based (on the Italian manufactured) habitation module or a Bigelow BA330 inflatable thing. Is this the beginning of ISS part two with cobbled together components from government launched Russian, NASA and ESA stuff to make a viable BEO station in these financial hard times. These are interesting times in the space race, that's for sure.
I'd say the show stopper right now is Congress. They hold the purse strings, and it remains to be seen if they will pay for actual exploration (versus the carefully zip code-engineered SLS, etc). This plan has a pretty good chance, IMHO, since it is 1) being proposed by Boeing and already has growing support inside NASA 2) Makes use of SLS 3) makes use of ISS 4) can gain the support of the Moon-first, Mars-first, and NEA-first groups 5) it can be sold as just "making do with what we already have" (whether or not that's necessarily cheaper) 5) looks like it enables reusable hardware instead of "just throwing stuff away" (wehter or not that's necessarily cheaper) and 6) is flexible enough that it could make use of something like commercial cargo and/or commercial crew in the future along with "game-changing technologies" like high-power SEP and even propellant depots.
This is a much more realistic architecture than the usual "Battlestar Galactica" style DRMs that never, ever leave powerpoint, IMO.
From the charts,
the plan breaks down after Block 1The lack of work on technology development over the last two decades is primary reason that these modules are *NOT* ready to go. It is why there are so few missions... why there has to be a flexible path.
Multiple reasons, but here is two: cost and radiation protection.
Reducing costs is easy, just build depots and fly smaller rockets many times, eliminating the 70+ tonne LV product lines. As Bolden said, it is difficult for many to believe this is the case, but parts of Congress would rather play the political blame game rather than admit that their solution was ill-advised--without be called out on the carpet by their constituents and/or NASA engineers.
Radiation is on NASA's list of
Top Technical Challenges: Space Radiation Health Effects and Radiation for a reason:
Few would want to encounter a solar storm. So the article mentions 'radiation storm shelters'. Add mass to shield, in this case plastic.
So what about cosmic radiation?
Cosmic rays originating from outside the solar system are much different and much more damaging.
So magically, a picture of 'Block 1" 3 months/ISS" transitions to into "Block 1a, 12 months/NEA"? How?
Well this would take a very long discussion, but it should be obvious (?) that the solution will not use plastic as the primary shielding for cosmic rays.
-
#52
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 22:30
-
...
Well this would take a very long discussion, but it should be obvious (?) that the solution will not use plastic as the primary shielding for cosmic rays.
Nope, it is most certainly not obvious. Water and plastic do just about as well, magnetic doesn't shield against GCRs enough to matter, and the only thing a little better would be like slush hydrogen or something like that (i.e. expensive and complicated). Biomedical countermeasures, like antioxidant cocktails, are certainly a possibility, but the radiation doses in question ARE NOT AN AUTOMATIC SHOWSTOPPER.
To be honest, plastic (or possibly in addition to water, since it's already a consumable) probably WILL be the primary shielding for cosmic rays, or rather we'll just have to live with it for the most part (some individuals have higher radiation tolerance or less chance of developing cancer from radiation).
The other risks being faced on the mission are higher than the risks from cosmic rays, so I do not think a "STOP EVERYTHING BECAUSE OF THE RADIATION" response is that reasonable. Of course we need to study this. And we have been. It's easy to make the assumption that just because you don't know about it, no one else does either. There are ways to mitigate the issue and they will sort them out as we go. This essentially IS a flexible path solution.
The risk to the mission is acute radiation poisoning from solar energetic particles. GCRs are not actually much of a mission risk (other than the usual and well-understood radiation hardening of electronics).
If you could shield against all the solar particles, the radiation doses should be reduced to about what is experienced at ISS (or Mir), especially during solar maximum (when GCRs are at a minimum).
(And for the record, I agree with you about the cost, I would do just as you propose in a heart-beat... though even depots are not strictly needed for this architecture, though propellant transfer would really help and would be practically needed anyway to resupply the exploration gateway with station-keeping propellant.)
-
#53
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 10 Mar, 2012 01:14
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
Heh, "Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to occur over a period of several years while MPCV and SLS development are being completed" indicates clearly that they're unaware that all the budget is being consumed doing MPCV/SLS. Or just in denial.. which is not unusual at all.
My thoughts exactly.
Where's the funding? Answer: it does not exist.
All-in-all this is just another Powerpoint dream.
Before you all jump on this, remember that this was a presentation given in November 2011 - WELL BEFORE the current Obama administration's proposal gutting of NASA's budget in February 2012.
-
#54
by
muomega0
on 12 Mar, 2012 14:20
-
...
Well this would take a very long discussion, but it should be obvious (?) that the solution will not use plastic as the primary shielding for cosmic rays.
Nope, it is most certainly not obvious. Water and plastic do just about as well, magnetic doesn't shield against GCRs enough to matter, and the only thing a little better would be like slush hydrogen or something like that (i.e. expensive and complicated).
So much misinformation.
Where to begin?
The fact that the solution(s) are not obvious to you and you think that water and plastic are the solution is most discerning. As mentioned early, shielding can actually make cosmic rays more detrimental to health. Great for Block 1, but not for BEO-Block1a.
"enough to matter" - Stay tuned!
But rather than let some
really interesting solutions be explored...some parts of congress challenge the lower funding of SLS at the expense of {long list}. Is the same SLS that includes solids, that raise LAS abort mass from 9000 to 20k lbs or the one with liquids, or both, or has more probabilistic analysis been performed to reduce the conservative estimate, where there is 1:2000 or 1:100(?) chance of LOC?
Biomedical countermeasures, like antioxidant cocktails, are certainly a possibility, but the radiation doses in question ARE NOT AN AUTOMATIC SHOWSTOPPER.
Then you disagree with most, if not all of NASA that
Radiation is a Top 10 ChallengeThere are possibilities, but no plan because of so little priority.
Define showstopper: ~9 months on ISS, ~30 days on the lunar surface, ~14 days BEO?
To be honest, plastic (or possibly in addition to water, since it's already a consumable) probably WILL be the primary shielding for cosmic rays, or rather we'll just have to live with it for the most part (some individuals have higher radiation tolerance or less chance of developing cancer from radiation).
I do not think you are grasping the concept: for cosmic rays, adding shielding actually makes thing worse, but slightly better for solar events. So the LEO solution is not the primary solution for BEO.
Funny thing, isn't it?
The other risks being faced on the mission are higher than the risks from cosmic rays, so I do not think a "STOP EVERYTHING BECAUSE OF THE RADIATION" response is that reasonable. Of course we need to study this. And we have been. It's easy to make the assumption that just because you don't know about it, no one else does either. There are ways to mitigate the issue and they will sort them out as we go. This essentially IS a flexible path solution.
Flexible path with a depot centric architecture until the challenges are addressed. Further, the technology for depots can be implemented for cosmic radiation protection. Sounds exciting! So how does SLS/Orion/MPCV solve any of these issues? Isn't the transhab, Block 1a, providing the protection? So very confusing......
The risk to the mission is acute radiation poisoning from solar energetic particles. GCRs are not actually much of a mission risk (other than the usual and well-understood radiation hardening of electronics).
Uncrewed? There are quite a few risk takers....
If you could shield against all the solar particles, the radiation doses should be reduced to about what is experienced at ISS (or Mir), especially during solar maximum (when GCRs are at a minimum).
ISS is a not a BEO issue.
It is well known that solar events can reduce the effects of cosmic rays, but to state "GCRs are at a minimum" is misleading.
So now the flights occur only during solar max events? So how does one get the flight rate to increase, if ever?
(And for the record, I agree with you about the cost, I would do just as you propose in a heart-beat... though even depots are not strictly needed for this architecture, though propellant transfer would really help and would be practically needed anyway to resupply the exploration gateway with station-keeping propellant.)
The technology for depots is essential for smaller launch vehicles and high ISP solutions to reduce IMLEO to reduce costs. Parts of the technology are needed for radiation protection. The plan should include include gateway depot eventually, but not before LEO. And it has *nothing* to do with station keeping.
At least now, one can start to see what needs the protection (the trans hab). Further, it is recognized that SEP would supplement chemical.
This is a good step toward a flexible plan.
-
#55
by
BrightLight
on 12 Mar, 2012 15:09
-
Is there a thread on Radiation Issues for BEO?
I think this is worthy of a separate debate
-
#56
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Mar, 2012 15:59
-
...
Well this would take a very long discussion, but it should be obvious (?) that the solution will not use plastic as the primary shielding for cosmic rays.
Nope, it is most certainly not obvious. Water and plastic do just about as well, magnetic doesn't shield against GCRs enough to matter, and the only thing a little better would be like slush hydrogen or something like that (i.e. expensive and complicated).
So much misinformation. Where to begin?
The fact that the solution(s) are not obvious to you and you think that water and plastic are the solution is most discerning. As mentioned early, shielding can actually make cosmic rays more detrimental to health. Great for Block 1, but not for BEO-Block1a.
"enough to matter" - Stay tuned!
But rather than let some really interesting solutions be explored...some parts of congress challenge the lower funding of SLS at the expense of {long list}. Is the same SLS that includes solids, that raise LAS abort mass from 9000 to 20k lbs or the one with liquids, or both, or has more probabilistic analysis been performed to reduce the conservative estimate, where there is 1:2000 or 1:100(?) chance of LOC?
Biomedical countermeasures, like antioxidant cocktails, are certainly a possibility, but the radiation doses in question ARE NOT AN AUTOMATIC SHOWSTOPPER.
Then you disagree with most, if not all of NASA that Radiation is a Top 10 Challenge
There are possibilities, but no plan because of so little priority.
Define showstopper: ~9 months on ISS, ~30 days on the lunar surface, ~14 days BEO?
To be honest, plastic (or possibly in addition to water, since it's already a consumable) probably WILL be the primary shielding for cosmic rays, or rather we'll just have to live with it for the most part (some individuals have higher radiation tolerance or less chance of developing cancer from radiation).
I do not think you are grasping the concept: for cosmic rays, adding shielding actually makes thing worse, but slightly better for solar events. So the LEO solution is not the primary solution for BEO.
Funny thing, isn't it?
The other risks being faced on the mission are higher than the risks from cosmic rays, so I do not think a "STOP EVERYTHING BECAUSE OF THE RADIATION" response is that reasonable. Of course we need to study this. And we have been. It's easy to make the assumption that just because you don't know about it, no one else does either. There are ways to mitigate the issue and they will sort them out as we go. This essentially IS a flexible path solution.
Flexible path with a depot centric architecture until the challenges are addressed. Further, the technology for depots can be implemented for cosmic radiation protection. Sounds exciting! So how does SLS/Orion/MPCV solve any of these issues? Isn't the transhab, Block 1a, providing the protection? So very confusing......
The risk to the mission is acute radiation poisoning from solar energetic particles. GCRs are not actually much of a mission risk (other than the usual and well-understood radiation hardening of electronics).
Uncrewed? There are quite a few risk takers....
If you could shield against all the solar particles, the radiation doses should be reduced to about what is experienced at ISS (or Mir), especially during solar maximum (when GCRs are at a minimum).
ISS is a not a BEO issue.
It is well known that solar events can reduce the effects of cosmic rays, but to state "GCRs are at a minimum" is misleading.
So now the flights occur only during solar max events? So how does one get the flight rate to increase, if ever?
(And for the record, I agree with you about the cost, I would do just as you propose in a heart-beat... though even depots are not strictly needed for this architecture, though propellant transfer would really help and would be practically needed anyway to resupply the exploration gateway with station-keeping propellant.)
The technology for depots is essential for smaller launch vehicles and high ISP solutions to reduce IMLEO to reduce costs. Parts of the technology are needed for radiation protection. The plan should include include gateway depot eventually, but not before LEO. And it has *nothing* to do with station keeping.
At least now, one can start to see what needs the protection (the trans hab). Further, it is recognized that SEP would supplement chemical.
This is a good step toward a flexible plan.
I'm not going to do a piece-by-piece response.
It is most certainly true that solar minimum (which occurs every eleven years) has a minimum of galactic cosmic rays because they are shielded partly by the heliosphere. GCR intensity is reduced by half during solar maximum. That you don't know this (and thus assume I'm giving a unenlightened reply) and think I was talking about solar /events/ shows you really don't know what you're talking about. Solar maximum lasts for several years and refers to the intensity of the interplanetary magnetic field.
The level of magnetic shielding necessary to deflect GCRs on a small scale is very, very large, about the same order of magnitude as those inside an MRI machine. Shielding an entire ship like that would be prohibitively expensive (read: practically impossible). Yes, I've calculated it.
Mir and ISS have about half the radiation dose as is received at Mars orbit, so yourfigures are way off and show you do not have a good grasp of the scale of the issue.
I know what I'm talking about, I've done the math, I have a degree in Physics, and I took an upper-level course in Space Physics (dealing with the movement of charged particles through the solar system, etc) a few months ago.
GCRs are not a mission risk, they cause a small increase in the risk for developing cancer later in life. Like smoking. If the only way to get to Mars was to smoke, would that be a "showstopper" to you?
-
#57
by
BrightLight
on 12 Mar, 2012 17:05
-
There are a couple of people around here who know just a little bit about radiation - me I just sweep the floors:
2 inches of water does good for GCR
http://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htmfor neutrons Boron has a great cross section and Boron infused polyethylene
does a fine job:
http://www.deqtech.com/Shieldwerx/Info/SWX- 210_Radiation_Properties.pdf
a thin layer of cadmium also will do wonders for ionizing radiation
so one can conceive of a system of Kevlar micrometeorite jacket (like the Bigelow inflatables) with a water tube inner jacket with a plastic liner as a radiation shield.
Fast Gamma rays present a problem - the quality of the protection scales with z number i.e. electron density - like lead
thus the biggest problem to BEO is the mass of the shield we have to take with us
and
this is why we need lots of throw-weight to LEO to build-up the spacecraft such as the one espoused by Boeing on this thread
-
#58
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Mar, 2012 17:09
-
There are a couple of people around here who know just a little bit about radiation - me I just sweep the floors:
2 inches of water does good for GCR
http://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/TM104782/techmemo.htm
for neutrons Boron has a great cross section and Boron infused polyethylene
does a fine job:
http://www.deqtech.com/Shieldwerx/Info/SWX- 210_Radiation_Properties.pdf
a thin layer of cadmium also will do wonders for ionizing radiation
so one can conceive of a system of Kevlar micrometeorite jacket (like the Bigelow inflatables) with a water tube inner jacket with a plastic liner as a radiation shield.
Fast Gamma rays present a problem - the quality of the protection scales with z number i.e. electron density - like lead
thus the biggest problem to BEO is the mass of the shield we have to take with us
and
this is why we need lots of throw-weight to LEO to build-up the spacecraft such as the one espoused by Boeing on this thread
Good post.
-
#59
by
BrightLight
on 12 Mar, 2012 17:42
-
-
#60
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Mar, 2012 17:48
-
A quick internet search on gamma ray shielding gives:
http://www.canlaser.com/en/GammaRay.aspx
http://www.isotechshielding.com/products.html
I have no idea how well this stuff works but I will ask around the other floor sweepers and see if they know something
(the union of concerned floor sweepers)
Gamma rays are not a main source of radiation dose in deep space. For the vast majority, it's energetic charged particles that we're worrying about here. Just a FYI.
-
#61
by
Danderman
on 12 Mar, 2012 22:12
-
Better to use a Kvant derivative for the Russian hab module than a Zvezda class module; that would save 10 tons.
-
#62
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Mar, 2012 22:46
-
Better to use a Kvant derivative for the Russian hab module than a Zvezda class module; that would save 10 tons.
By that logic, even better would be no Russian module at all.
For the gateway (placed at EML-1), mass isn't so much of a concern because it is moved via a SEP tug, which isn't very sensitive to mass growth. For a mission module (which will go through large delta-vs several times), you are much more sensitive to mass growth.
Zvezda/Zarya-class modules offer significantly greater capability than Kvant-class.
-
#63
by
robertross
on 13 Mar, 2012 00:46
-
Better to use a Kvant derivative for the Russian hab module than a Zvezda class module; that would save 10 tons.
By that logic, even better would be no Russian module at all.
For the gateway (placed at EML-1), mass isn't so much of a concern because it is moved via a SEP tug, which isn't very sensitive to mass growth. For a mission module (which will go through large delta-vs several times), you are much more sensitive to mass growth.
Zvezda/Zarya-class modules offer significantly greater capability than Kvant-class.
And if they used the reuseable lander to go from EML-1 to the lunar polar surface and back, they could possibly save a ton of money transporting water for the radiation shield (rather than sending it up from Earth, assuming the poles support that much water/ice).
The benefit of this approach is that you would 'theoretically' want/need a mining operation on the lunar surface anyway, so this becomes a good dual-purpose solution, as it helps test out/develop the technology.
-
#64
by
Danderman
on 13 Mar, 2012 01:20
-
Better to use a Kvant derivative for the Russian hab module than a Zvezda class module; that would save 10 tons.
By that logic, even better would be no Russian module at all.
Zvezda/Zarya-class modules offer significantly greater capability than Kvant-class.
Zvezda and Zarya are different classes of modules with significantly differing capabilities. Kvant, however, is a 3rd class, with capabilities that would be useful in the context of the Boeing concept.
-
#65
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Mar, 2012 01:27
-
Better to use a Kvant derivative for the Russian hab module than a Zvezda class module; that would save 10 tons.
By that logic, even better would be no Russian module at all.
Zvezda/Zarya-class modules offer significantly greater capability than Kvant-class.
Zvezda and Zarya are different classes of modules with significantly differing capabilities. Kvant, however, is a 3rd class, with capabilities that would be useful in the context of the Boeing concept.
I'm aware of that, though Zvezda and Zarya are roughly in the same mass class (which is what I had in mind) and have independent propulsion (refuelable), solar arrays, etc.
-
#66
by
Danderman
on 13 Mar, 2012 16:32
-
I'm aware of that, though Zvezda and Zarya are roughly in the same mass class (which is what I had in mind) and have independent propulsion (refuelable), solar arrays, etc.
[/quote]
Rather than just have an abstract discussion on this, let me provide some information that supports my contention that in a Real World system that has the requirement to include a Russian hab module, a Kvant derived system is preferable to a Zvezda or Zarya/Kvant 2 class module.
First off, let me lay out the additional top level requirements for such a module in the context of the Boeing proposal:
1) Connect to Boeing segment.
2) Provide docking port for Russian visiting vehicle.
3) Provide additional pressurized volume for crew (beyond US segment volume).
4) Contain and support Russian ECLSS.
5) Provide power to at least Russian segment.
6) Provide sleeping quarters to crew.
7) Support Russian science.
I don't know of any requirements for the Russian module to provide propulsion or attitude control for the Exploration platform, and in Real World engineering, any mass allocated to functions that are not requirements or even desirements is a wasted mass. Although mass is not critical to PowerPoint concepts, in the Real World, every kilogram of wasted mass is a Bad Thing, since that kilogram could be used for additional spare parts or medical supplies, or prop.
Zvezda is a 20 ton+ class module, with most of that mass, but not all, utilized to meet the requirements above.
Zarya is a 20 ton class module, with most of that mass used for purposes other than the requirements above.
Kvant is a 10 ton class module with all of that mass used to meet the requirements above.
But you must get tired of a few people just posting "no money for it"?
Where to begin?