_Augustus_

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, PB666 said:

I don't see a reason they wouldn't work, provided they do not spend alot of time in orbit before transferring.

The proposed orbit comes very close to the surface of the Moon which is problematic because of heat radiated from the surface. Because the orbit is Highly elliptic, the DSG will spend alot of time in constantant sunlight as opposed to the ISS which has 45 min sunlight and 45 min nighttime. So there is a definitive difference in the thermal environment. And seeing that the Orbit is out of earths magnetic Field, there will be more radiation. They definitely can‘t just use elements meant for the ISS without adjustments.

Edited by Canopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The orbit I saw only comes very close to the moon sometimes. Such a transport goes to DGS offloads its fuel into the cryogenic storage then either burns into a solar orbit or returns back to LEO for more fuel. I need not stay near the moon for any length of time.

Of course the DSG itself has to be different from ISS. If the ISS were designed today it would be different from itself., that goes without saying, that does not mean that classic spacecraft cannot interact with it.

Edited by PB666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn‘t the suggestion to use Raffaelo and node 4 as elements of the DSG? I don‘t think it is about what kind of spacecraft can rendezvous with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Wasn‘t the suggestion to use Raffaelo and node 4 as elements of the DSG? I don‘t think it is about what kind of spacecraft can rendezvous with it.

That was for the Exploration Gateway Platform, which is not DSG. They may be used if DSG is built, but that hardware is fairly old. I certainly wouldn't use them.

Edited by Bill Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bill Phil said:

That was for the Exploration Gateway Platform, which is not DAG. They may be used if DSG is built, but that hardware is fairly old. I certainly wouldn't use them.

Which gets back to the original problem, DSG is still more or less a concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

That was for the Exploration Gateway Platform, which is not DSG. They may be used if DSG is built, but that hardware is fairly old. I certainly wouldn't use them.

No i meant the post by _Augustus_ was suggesting that elements of DSG already exist, in the form of Raffaelo and Node 4, when in fact they were never considered.

Edited by Canopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canopus said:

No i meant the post by _Augustus_ was suggesting that elements of DSG already exist, in the form of Raffaelo and Node 4, when in fact they were never considered.

I thought you were referring to a suggestion by NASA or some  aerospace company.

Yes, those modules are not really in the running. Node 4 does not quite exist as flight hardware, and, if used on DSG, would be around thirty years old by the time of launch. Raffaello would be nearly thirty years old as well. Certainly not the preferred option for a deep space station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

I thought you were referring to a suggestion by NASA or some  aerospace company.

Yes, those modules are not really in the running. Node 4 does not quite exist as flight hardware, and, if used on DSG, would be around thirty years old by the time of launch. Raffaello would be nearly thirty years old as well. Certainly not the preferred option for a deep space station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffaello_MPLM#/media/File:STS-100_MPLM_Raffaello_is_moved_to_the_payload_canister.jpg

currently being being house at KSS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Gateway_Platform#/media/File:ExplorationGatewayPlatform_components.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_4

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Yes, and? Node 4 would be built using Node STA. It's not flight ready hardware at the moment, afaik. It was originally going to be Node 1, but problems arose, as they so often do. 

And I know that Raffaello is at KSC. Its first launch was around 2001. Very old hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Yes, and? Node 4 would be built using Node STA. It's not flight ready hardware at the moment, afaik. It was originally going to be Node 1, but problems arose, as they so often do. 

And I know that Raffaello is at KSC. Its first launch was around 2001. Very old hardware.

Just giving folks an idea what you are talking about. There is no reason that Node STA could not be used. My opinion, for what its worth, Raffaello is cooked, well done in fact, it served as part of the assembly of the ISS in the days of space shuttles and it will not be used again (barring some freak return of the space shuttle). STA is undressed, which basically means it can be anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 7:09 PM, _Augustus_ said:

Yeah. The fact that it's still "proposed" and no contracts beyond studies are being initiated means it's about as real as VASIMR for the time being.

No, it is not as real as VASIMR. VASIMR has been built, tested and continues to be tested. There are few versions of VASIMR. Here is a website of videos on VASIMR: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/video. VASIMR has been contracted with NASA. Currently they are doing a 10 hour steady state test, which they have completed 2 out of 3 year test sussessfully. Here is the latest information on VASIMR, http://adastrarocket.com/pressReleases/AdAstraRelease080917-final.pdf.     

Edited by RAJ JAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vasmir has never been tested in any circumstance that it was required to accomplish something other than showing it can blast ions and consume lots and lots and lots of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what’s the current main purpose of SLS, is it Moon surface base? DST? Something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

So what’s the current main purpose of SLS, is it Moon surface base? DST? Something else?

LOL

 

 

^^^^that's the main purpose of SLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tater said:

LOL

 

 

^^^^that's the main purpose of SLS.

Wouldn't they get more jobs if they actually started launching, instead of delaying to 2023?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Wouldn't they get more jobs if they actually started launching, instead of delaying to 2023?

Launching is incidental, the people are employed, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tater said:

Launching is incidental, the people are employed, right?

I know, I know, it’s all a jobs program and all that, but I was asking what’s the primary payload planned for it, since DSG isn’t very likely to happen any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSG is it. They’ll have to fund it, or something else, and soon.

DSG is it. They’ll have to fund it, or something else, and soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tater said:

DSG is it. They’ll have to fund it, or something else, and soon.

DSG is it. They’ll have to fund it, or something else, and soon

Can it possibly help with POTUS’s new plan for surface missions? Maybe serve as a hub for landers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tater said:

DSG is it. They’ll have to fund it, or something else, and soon.

DSG is it. They’ll have to fund it, or something else, and soon

This thread is starting to sound like a broken record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sh1pman said:

Can it possibly help with POTUS’s new plan for surface missions? Maybe serve as a hub for landers?

Technically. But then you need funding for DSG and landers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is starting to sound like a broken record.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bill Phil said:

Technically. But then you need funding for DSG and landers.

 

Well, is there a better way to do it? Without DSG, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DSG had a giant fuel tank for refueling moon landers, yes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DAL59 said:

If the DSG had a giant fuel tank for refueling moon landers, yes.  

Maybe it will. I mean, people here are very quick to bury DSG, but it can still be very useful as a refueling dock for reusable landers, probe control center, midway point for cargo delivery, emergency shelter for unplanned situations on the surface, probably something else as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.