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
  #1  
Old September 28th 17, 07:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
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?
Ads
  #2  
Old September 28th 17, 09:07 PM 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 . com,
says...

On 2017-09-28 14:28,
wrote:

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



Does the technlogy exist to make the needed shielding for long term
stays this high up?


The technology is materials like water and polyethylene.

How different would that station be from the ISS (apart from shielding)?


Much smaller.

From a communicatiosn point of view, would that require NASA re-open
long range satelite dishes around the earth so that it could maintain
decent comms with the moon station? (do TDRS satellites have outward
facing antennas ?)


The DSN has been maintained for "deep space probes", so I don't think
this is a big issue.

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.

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.
  #4  
Old September 29th 17, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
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/
  #5  
Old September 30th 17, 10:31 PM 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 ,
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  
Old September 30th 17, 10:38 PM 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 . 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  
Old October 1st 17, 01:52 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.

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  
Old October 1st 17, 02:12 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.

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  
Old October 1st 17, 11:39 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 2017-09-30 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  
Old October 1st 17, 02:53 PM 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...
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.
 




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 07:53 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.