-
#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 hope it can be done in parallel.
I'll just be happier if SLS flys first........... -
#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.
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).
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'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 1
The 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
-
...
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.
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.
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
-
My thoughts exactly.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.
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
-
...
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).
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.
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?QuoteBiomedical 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?QuoteTo 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?QuoteThe 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......QuoteThe 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....QuoteIf 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?Quote(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
-
I'm not going to do a piece-by-piece response....
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).
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.
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?QuoteBiomedical 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?QuoteTo 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?QuoteThe 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......QuoteThe 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....QuoteIf 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?Quote(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.
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.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
-
#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:
Good post.
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
-
#59 by BrightLight on 12 Mar, 2012 17:42
-
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)
Where to begin?