A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near themoon. Here's why.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 3rd 17, 12:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,733
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-02 05:58, Jeff Findley wrote:

Only for the center lower stage. It has to be different than the
boosters, which are essentially Falcon 9 first stages with nose cones
instead of their own upper stage.


Musk said that it _all_ had to be re-engineered. Consider that the
boosters don't push a payload up, they push a payload attached it to its
side.

Carbon fiber tanks will be something new for SpaceX, so it's a risk.
The question is, how big of a risk?


My concern with the 1 big tank design is that for a long duration
flight, a failure of the one tank is sayonara for everyone.


It's always 'one big tank'. Using a ****load of little tanks is a
great way to build a vehicle that is too heavy to fly.


But today, "efficiency" isn't the design metric, it's the eventual cost
per pound to orbit that's the design metric.


Aren't smaller engines more reliable (or easier to make more reliable)?
If so, it makes sense to use multiple smaller engines.


It's not the size of the engine that determines reliability. Rather
it is how hard a particular engine pushes the envelope to get better
power/weight. ****loads of little engines require more plumbing, so
you would have to push them harder to get similar performance to fewer
larger engines.


Howewer, in commercial aviation, the reverse is now true. The 777 has
won over the 747 mainly because owning a plane with 2 engines costs a
lot less than one with 4 (as engines are costly to buy and maintain).

I wonder if rockets will also eventually adopt the "fewer but bigger
engines" mentality to cut maintenance costs.


They did. Now we're headed in the other direction. Saturn V used
five large engines on the first stage. Falcon Heavy uses 27. The
primary advantage of having more engines is that you get some degree
of 'engine out' capability. The primary disadvantage is that there
are more engines to keep synchronized and more for something to go
wrong with.


more existing engines on the next design than to have to design and
build new engines, then both Musk and Bezos will do so, even if it
complicates the plumbing, structure, control systems, and etc.


But again, once you have more then 3 engines, does using 3 5 or 9 make
things that far more complex? Isn't there a lot of "copy/paste" done on
the engine mount designs once you are beyond 3 engines ?


Think plumbing and directional control. Also think about history. The
first stage of the Saturn V had 5 engines. The first stage of the
corresponding Russian rocket used 30 engines. N-1 went 4 attempted
launches with 0 successes. More engines means more chance that
something will go wrong with one or more of them.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Ads
  #23  
Old October 5th 17, 03:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 618
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

The big issue is funding. This "agreement" is kind of like a memorandum
of understanding. The US Congress has not allocated funding for this
venture, aside from a pittance to study a HAB module which would be
applicable.


Ayup, another paper study. They're a dime a dozen.


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #24  
Old October 25th 17, 03:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.

Radiation exposure does increase mortality for lunar travellers.

http://observer.com/2016/07/space-ra...lo-astronauts/

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901

https://phys.org/news/2013-05-exposu...rney-mars.html

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

The Apollo missions were less than 1 rad generally, and exposure limit was set to 400 rad - which NASA at that time said was equivalent to an x-ray.

How to convert rads, rems, sieverts

http://news.mit.edu/2011/explained-radioactivity-0328

http://buzzaldrin.com/files/pdf/2002...ajectories.pdf

The BE-330 is a 20 ton six passenger space module that can be configured for use as a base or orbiting station. The Falcon Heavy is capable of placing 63.8 MT into LEO and Delta IV Heavy puts 28.8 MT into LEO.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...t-37-days.html

http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/b330/

So, a single Falcon Heavy launch could place a BA-330 into LEO along with another BA-330 with up to 23.8 MT kick stage. Which is sufficient to kick it into a lunar cycler orbit. One that is 27.32158 days divided by 3. Or 9..1071933 days - which brings it to the vicinity of the moon once a month, every three cycles of the station.

A second Falcon Heavy launch could then place a BA-330 into LEO with 43.8 metric ton kick stage. This makes it into LLO with propellant to spare.

A third Falcon Heavy launch then places another BA-330 into LEO with a 43.8 metric ton kick/landing stage. This makes it into LLO next to the other one. A portion of the propellant is transferred from the earlier stage, and the last BA-330 lands on the lunar surface.

Now, we are in place to send a Dragon capsule, with smaller kick stage/landing stage, to the moon and back, using the cycling stations. Carrying 7 passengers at a time, with six passengers living aboard the cycling station and one aboard the capsule.

Another approach is to dispense altogether with the lunar landing BA-330 and instead develop lunar rocket belts that are capable of landing on the moon and returning to orbit. I've written about this possibility here;

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/remem...-william-mook/



On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 7:28:06 AM UTC+13, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives
of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an
agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual
goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a
space station somewhere near the moon.

Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build
something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to
more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as
the 2020’s."

See:

https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station


Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth-
orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed?

  #25  
Old November 26th 17, 04:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 7:28:06 AM UTC+13, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives
of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an
agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual
goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a
space station somewhere near the moon.

Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build
something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to
more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as
the 2020’s."

See:

https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station


Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth-
orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed?


https://www.wired.com/2013/07/lunar-flying-units-1969/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

Put a space station in a highly elliptic orbit with a 9.1 day period - that travels between the Earth and moon one out of every three orbits.

Put a space station in an orbit around the moon that has a perilune at 50 km and an apolune near the apogee of the transfer station - and then - use rocket belts to transfer astronauts between stations and to and from the surface.

  #26  
Old November 27th 17, 12:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.

congress needs to make doing any business with russia at all completely ILLEGAL, as punishment for their meddling in our election.

wind down ISS, no food sales to russia, no nothing..

make it illegal for at least 5 years, after putin leaves office
  #27  
Old November 27th 17, 03:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives
of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an
agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual
goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a
space station somewhere near the moon.

Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build
something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to
more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as
the 2020’s."

See:

https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station


Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth-
orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed?


I would try to place a small asteroid in orbit around the moon.
Mine it, and leave a cavity with a single pressure wall with
an airlock.

The cost in fuel and launches would be what?

The longer it takes to get the asteroid captured the lower
the fuel cost.

Just make the selection the right diameter. About 50 yards.
Dropping this on Earth by mistake would not be catastrophic.
  #28  
Old November 28th 17, 06:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,733
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.

wrote:

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives
of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an
agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual
goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a
space station somewhere near the moon.

Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build
something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to
more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as
the 2020s."

See:

https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station


Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth-
orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed?


I would try to place a small asteroid in orbit around the moon.
Mine it, and leave a cavity with a single pressure wall with
an airlock.


But you're an idiot, so what you'd try isn't of any particular
interest.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #29  
Old November 28th 17, 11:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,684
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives
of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an
agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual
goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a
space station somewhere near the moon.

Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build
something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to
more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as
the 2020?s."

See:

https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station


Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth-
orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed?


I would try to place a small asteroid in orbit around the moon.
Mine it, and leave a cavity with a single pressure wall with
an airlock.


Lunar orbit is terrible for this because lunar orbits are unstable due
to the non-uniform mass of the moon. And once it's mined, you have to
dispose of the waste. Just letting it impact the moon in an
uncontrolled fashion seems ham fisted at best.

The cost in fuel and launches would be what?

The longer it takes to get the asteroid captured the lower
the fuel cost.


Then why not mine the thing "in place" and bring back only what's
commercially valuable?

Just make the selection the right diameter. About 50 yards.
Dropping this on Earth by mistake would not be catastrophic.


It would be catastrophic for the location that was hit.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Secondary payload that would, advance NASA's exploration of themoon Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 0 April 11th 06 02:15 PM
Russia Rocket Heads for Space Station Rudolph_X Astronomy Misc 0 October 2nd 05 06:15 PM
With NASA of Today How long Would it Take To Go To TheMoon? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 130 August 26th 04 07:42 PM
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? JimO Space Station 24 November 29th 03 12:37 AM
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? JimO History 26 November 29th 03 12:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.