A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #1  
Old September 28th 17, 07:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default 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  
Old September 29th 17, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default 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/
  #4  
Old September 30th 17, 10:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default 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.
  #5  
Old October 1st 17, 01:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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
  #6  
Old October 1st 17, 02:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.

In article ,
says...
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).


Agreed. This could be the vehicle that finally gets NASA manned
spaceflight beyond LEO in a truly meaningful way. With its crazy
capacity and delta-V capability, it could land all the science
experiments on the moon that NASA could dream up (at least in the next
5-10 years). The BFR upper stage is very close to the hypothetical in
orbit refuelable SSTO discussed in the sci.space about three decades
ago.

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?).


Possibly. But Blue Origin isn't sitting still either, so SpaceX could
have some competition. Real competition is a good thing.

There will no doubt be a portion of launches by governments that will
choose to use their own vehicles, at least for some time. It would be a
bit embarrassing, for example, for Ariane 6 to only fly a few times due
to high costs and complete lack of customers.

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?


Routine, inexpensive, access to LEO via BFR might turn out to be a
viable replacement for much of the activities done on ISS today. Why
rotate a crew on ISS every six months when you can just launch another
BFR with crew and experiments?

But, IMHO, you still need long term (years rather than months) in space
laboratories, habitats, power generation, and etc. to perform longer
term experiments. So ISS may still have a purpose for some time to
come. But, time will tell.

Truly cheap access to space (CATS) is something the sci.space newsgroup
has been discussing since I started reading it back in 1988 or so. It's
taken decades to get where we are now (proving once and for all that the
all expendable old space "emperor has no clothes"). It may take another
10 or more years for the vision of a truly inexpensive BFR to become
reality. But I truly hope that SpaceX's time-line for BFR is fairly
realistic and that it is as successful as they hope.

Worst case, we've still got Blue Origin slowly plodding along. Bezos
seems quite content to keep funding it at its current pace. That's the
advantage of being a multi-billionaire. You don't have to rely
completely on outside funding for truly long term investments in new
tech.

It's kind of sad really. US corporations are sitting on so much cash
these days that could be funding truly long term tech development.
Apple, for example, has an obscene amount of cash, but all they seem to
be producing is incremental updates to the iPhone that truly don't
impress me. I'll be sticking with my 64GB iPhone 6 hand-me-down (was my
oldest daughter's) until it dies completely.

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  
Old October 1st 17, 05:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...
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).


Agreed. This could be the vehicle that finally gets NASA manned
spaceflight beyond LEO in a truly meaningful way. With its crazy
capacity and delta-V capability, it could land all the science
experiments on the moon that NASA could dream up (at least in the next
5-10 years). The BFR upper stage is very close to the hypothetical in
orbit refuelable SSTO discussed in the sci.space about three decades
ago.


The BFR spaceship can pretty much replace everything that NASA has
ever pictured doing with manned space. I need to go back and look at
the various Mars Reference Missions and see just how it compares to
the boosters called out in those. Interestingly, BFR is intended to
fly fast to Mars, making a 3 month trip of it. NASA with a thermal
nuclear rocket wasn't going that fast and were talking 6 months or so
in transit.

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?).


Possibly. But Blue Origin isn't sitting still either, so SpaceX could
have some competition. Real competition is a good thing.


True, but New Glenn appears to me to be on a slower track than Falcon
Heavy, which is its direct competition. I don't think Blue Origin has
anything like BFR in their pipeline.


There will no doubt be a portion of launches by governments that will
choose to use their own vehicles, at least for some time. It would be a
bit embarrassing, for example, for Ariane 6 to only fly a few times due
to high costs and complete lack of customers.


Europe will probably, as usual, favor their own launchers regardless
of competition.


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?


Routine, inexpensive, access to LEO via BFR might turn out to be a
viable replacement for much of the activities done on ISS today. Why
rotate a crew on ISS every six months when you can just launch another
BFR with crew and experiments?

But, IMHO, you still need long term (years rather than months) in space
laboratories, habitats, power generation, and etc. to perform longer
term experiments. So ISS may still have a purpose for some time to
come. But, time will tell.


Yeah, but you could still do that with the ship off BFR. It has a
standard docking port. You could always resupply the one on orbit
rather than rotate the vehicles. Put 25 people on it and you could
resupply it once a year and keep it up there indefinitely.


Truly cheap access to space (CATS) is something the sci.space newsgroup
has been discussing since I started reading it back in 1988 or so. It's
taken decades to get where we are now (proving once and for all that the
all expendable old space "emperor has no clothes"). It may take another
10 or more years for the vision of a truly inexpensive BFR to become
reality. But I truly hope that SpaceX's time-line for BFR is fairly
realistic and that it is as successful as they hope.


I'm sure Musk would like it to be flying to Mars in five years. He'd
no doubt like to achieve that dream while he's still young enough to
enjoy it.


Worst case, we've still got Blue Origin slowly plodding along. Bezos
seems quite content to keep funding it at its current pace. That's the
advantage of being a multi-billionaire. You don't have to rely
completely on outside funding for truly long term investments in new
tech.


Bezos has essentially said he can and will put a billion dollars a
year of his own money into New Glenn until it's done.


It's kind of sad really. US corporations are sitting on so much cash
these days that could be funding truly long term tech development.
Apple, for example, has an obscene amount of cash, but all they seem to
be producing is incremental updates to the iPhone that truly don't
impress me. I'll be sticking with my 64GB iPhone 6 hand-me-down (was my
oldest daughter's) until it dies completely.


I'm still using a Samsung Note 3. Most companies are looking at 90
days as 'long term'. You've got to have a CEO with money AND the
dream before things start becoming realities. Hell, I still remember
when Boeing fired most of their development engineers because they had
tens of billions of dollars in orders for airplanes they already knew
how to build (that's the way it was phrased). That's why ULA will
become increasingly irrelevant. It's run by accountants.


--
"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  
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?

  #9  
Old November 26th 17, 05:31 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.

  #10  
Old November 27th 17, 01:25 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
 




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 01:37 AM
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? JimO History 26 November 29th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.