|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near themoon. Here's why.
"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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.
On 29/09/2017 4:28 AM, 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? More likely, NASA are trying to justify their continued involvement in manned spaceflight. Sylvia. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.
Op-ed: The Deep Space Gateway would shackle
human exploration, not enable it: "NASA’s proposed Deep Space Gateway has been in the news recently due to a joint statement of support for the project from US and Russian officials. However, as former space shuttle pilot and International Space Station commander Terry Virts writes in an op-ed below, there is little agreement in US space policy circles about the need for the gateway." See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...not-enable-it/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
In article ,
ess says... On 29/09/2017 4:28 AM, 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? More likely, NASA are trying to justify their continued involvement in manned spaceflight. More like they're trying to find a use for SLS/Orion that doesn't require them to go back to Congress and ask for tens of billions more in funding for each year. Since Asteroid Retrieval Mission was shot down (because it was stupid to bring the asteroid to high earth orbit where Orion could reach it), NASA has been looking for something, anything, to replace it with. In my opinion, the Deep Space Gateway, as currently envisioned (likely a high lunar orbit or something similar), is "weak sauce" without a lunar lander. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
In article . com,
says... On 2017-09-29 12:42, wrote: Op-ed: The Deep Space Gateway would shackle human exploration, not enable it: And on Friday, Elon Musk unveiled its "versatile" BFR that can, with a single rocket, fly people New York to Sydney, bring people/cargo to ISS, land on Moon and land on mars and return. That part of the presentation is quite "far fetched" since it's not likely "average citizens" would ever utilize it. It is, however, quite possible the USAF would be interested, since this sort of thing has been proposed since the 1960s. No talk of moon orbiting station. But rather moon base Alpha. (although didn't quite look like the real moon base Alpha). This is surely to attract the attention of NASA and other international partners since NASA's proposed "deep space gateway" does not include a lander (too expensive and time consuming to develop using the same approach as SLS/Orion). More importantly, Musk aims to have in-orbit automated refueling, not at a station. That's always been part of the plan for BFR. Otherwise, it can't go much of anywhere once it's in LEO. First flight to Mars 2022 or 2024. Maybe, but not likely. Surely this will slip to the right by a few years. Basically, once he has enough stockpiles of Falcon 9s and Falcon 9 heavy that are re-usable, they can focus manufacturing on BFR. This is true, and should happen within the next few years. They'll still have to build a few Falcon parts, like the upper stage and fairings (since they've not yet been successfully recovered). **IF** this were to happen, it would blindside NASA into oblivion. It would in all likelihood be an SLS killer. BFR could be used to launch pretty much anything that SLS could. This would surely include Orion as well (launch it in the payload bay, then transfer the crew to it once it's in LEO). **IF** there is ay realism to this project, I can understand NASA scrambling to find some project to remain relevant. There is as much "realism" to it as there was to Falcon 9 launching manned Dragons to ISS 5 to 10 years ago. Today, that looks imminent. There is a lot of risk here, but the "holy grail" of cheap access to space has always been a fully reusable launch vehicle. BFR, even if unmanned, would be hugely useful. 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On 29/09/2017 4:28 AM, 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? More likely, NASA are trying to justify their continued involvement in manned spaceflight. More like they're trying to find a use for SLS/Orion that doesn't require them to go back to Congress and ask for tens of billions more in funding for each year. Since Asteroid Retrieval Mission was shot down (because it was stupid to bring the asteroid to high earth orbit where Orion could reach it), NASA has been looking for something, anything, to replace it with. In my opinion, the Deep Space Gateway, as currently envisioned (likely a high lunar orbit or something similar), is "weak sauce" without a lunar lander. Not only that, but if Musk actually gets BFR flying in the next five years it's rather pointless. With an orbital refueling, BFR could land dozens of people on the Moon and bring them all home. For $128 million BFR would put more people on the Moon in one shot than the entire Apollo program (and by a lot). Bring home a ton of samples (literally). Note that Musk figures that in the next few years SpaceX will capture half of the entire satellite launch business. In the face of that and BFR, NASA's 'lunar orbiting space station' makes even less sense (and it made very little in the first place - what's it for, exactly?). I loved the illustration Musk showed of a BFR spaceship docked to ISS. Given that the BFR spacecraft can carry 100 people in cabins with supplies for 3-6 months, what the hell would you need ISS for once it's flying? -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com, says... On 2017-09-29 12:42, wrote: Op-ed: The Deep Space Gateway would shackle human exploration, not enable it: And on Friday, Elon Musk unveiled its "versatile" BFR that can, with a single rocket, fly people New York to Sydney, bring people/cargo to ISS, land on Moon and land on mars and return. That part of the presentation is quite "far fetched" since it's not likely "average citizens" would ever utilize it. It is, however, quite possible the USAF would be interested, since this sort of thing has been proposed since the 1960s. Musk has since said that in the 'aircraft replacement' mode passenger tickets would run about what a current economy class ticket costs now. With an internal volume similar to an Airbus 380, you could presumably stick 850 or more passengers in there for a flight of that short duration. If we assume 1,000 passengers paying $2000 each (numbers which are at the high end), that says a launch cost of only $2 million. That doesn't seem doable to me. No talk of moon orbiting station. But rather moon base Alpha. (although didn't quite look like the real moon base Alpha). This is surely to attract the attention of NASA and other international partners since NASA's proposed "deep space gateway" does not include a lander (too expensive and time consuming to develop using the same approach as SLS/Orion). More importantly, Musk aims to have in-orbit automated refueling, not at a station. That's always been part of the plan for BFR. Otherwise, it can't go much of anywhere once it's in LEO. Launching a dedicated tanker or tankers as needed has always struck me as a better approach then an on orbit 'gas station'. In the case of the former you launch the fuel to the optimum location for a given mission with no need for long term storage on orbit. In the latter case you have to launch fuel to your 'gas station', which may not be in optimum location for a given mission, then launch your vehicle to that station to get 'gas' that you've had to store long term on orbit. Dedicated tankers is easier and cheaper. First flight to Mars 2022 or 2024. Maybe, but not likely. Surely this will slip to the right by a few years. Musk said 2022 or 2024 because "five years strikes me as a long time". I think it will take twice that, so call it 2028-2030. Basically, once he has enough stockpiles of Falcon 9s and Falcon 9 heavy that are re-usable, they can focus manufacturing on BFR. This is true, and should happen within the next few years. They'll still have to build a few Falcon parts, like the upper stage and fairings (since they've not yet been successfully recovered). Musk is still talking about getting a reusable fairing. That leaves the upper stage. **IF** this were to happen, it would blindside NASA into oblivion. It would in all likelihood be an SLS killer. BFR could be used to launch pretty much anything that SLS could. This would surely include Orion as well (launch it in the payload bay, then transfer the crew to it once it's in LEO). BFR could launch anything that even Block 2 SLS can lift. Right now Block 2 SLS is just a gleam in NASA's eye. I'm not sure why you'd bother with Orion, given that the 'ship' part of BFR is orders of magnitude more capable. **IF** there is ay realism to this project, I can understand NASA scrambling to find some project to remain relevant. There is as much "realism" to it as there was to Falcon 9 launching manned Dragons to ISS 5 to 10 years ago. Today, that looks imminent. There is a lot of risk here, but the "holy grail" of cheap access to space has always been a fully reusable launch vehicle. BFR, even if unmanned, would be hugely useful. It's almost too big. Replacing Falcon 9 with BFR (which Musk says is the plan) is an insane increase in capability and the cost to launch BFR can't be more than Falcon 9 per launch (around $63 million expendable or something like $40 million with booster recovery). -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-09-30 17:38, Jeff Findley wrote: There is a lot of risk here, but the "holy grail" of cheap access to space has always been a fully reusable launch vehicle. BFR, even if unmanned, would be hugely useful. If BFR works out, what happens to the rest of the industry? It adapts or dies. At what point do all the others (Boeing etc) scramble to develop reusable rockets? How many years to develop a reusable system? They already are. See the long term plan for ULA Vulcan. They're not thinking big enough, though. Their first goal is to halve the price of a basic Atlas (to around $84 million per launch). This is still a third more expensive than Falcon 9, which has similar payload, and down around the cost of Falcon Heavy, which is much more capable. They're not building for reusability but are talking about adding it later by having Vulcan jettison its first stage engines and recovering them in the air with a helicopter. Or would the big guys just increase lobby efforts so they continue to get the government/military business even if they can't compete on price? That too. They're still talking about using a bunch of solid rocket strap ons to increase payload. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |