Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

_Augustus_

By _Augustus_
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

13 launches just for a Mars orbit mission????  And another several for a Mars lander?

Its Mars, so duh, its not going to be in 2 or 3 launches. Obviously more launches and higher cost than SpaceX's plans, so i get what you mean.

5 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Plus, the Moon lander is two stage, so it can't be reused.  

Maybe the First stage can be refueled to get back into Lunar Orbit by itself? Just an idea however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

 

13 launches just for a Mars orbit mission????  And another several for a Mars lander?

Plus, the Moon lander is two stage, so it can't be reused.  

One Mars Mission would be two Launches. One for the DST and later just the Fuel, and one for Crew and Logistics. As for the Lander i can‘t seem to find it in the document but i wouldn‘t say more than two launches. All in all still less than Constellation proposal.

As for the Lunar lander, this proposal is not for the reusable lander. Although you could still reuse the ascent stage in this version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NSEP said:

its not going to be in 2 or 3 launches. 

Zubrin says that the SLS could do a 3 launch Mars mission.  One launch for a MAV, another for a spare MAV, and a small transfer vehicle.  

It would also be cheaper to do 26 launches with a FH than 13 with an SLS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Zubrin says that the SLS could do a 3 launch Mars mission.  One launch for a MAV, another for a spare MAV, and a small transfer vehicle.  

Cool! Is that not from Mars direct or something? Interesting, do you have a source?

Edited by NSEP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DAL59 said:

Zubrin says that the SLS could do a 3 launch Mars mission.  One launch for a MAV, another for a spare MAV, and a small transfer vehicle.  

It would also be cheaper to do 26 launches with a FH than 13 with an SLS.  

Its not 13 Launches for the Mars mission though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted
Just now, NSEP said:

Cool! Is that not from Mars direct or something? Interesting, do you have a source?

That is Mars direct.  

Just now, Canopus said:

Its not 13 Launches for the Mars mission though. 

file:///C:/Users/dlabr/Downloads/Duggan_8-9-17.pdf

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Duggan_8-9-17/Duggan_8-9-17.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

That is Mars direct.  

file:///C:/Users/dlabr/Downloads/Duggan_8-9-17.pdf

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Duggan_8-9-17/Duggan_8-9-17.pdf

Its a total of 13 launches but only Phase 2 and 3 have to do with preperations for a Mars flight. The rest are DSG mission. Have you read the document?

Edited by Canopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Yes, but there is no need for the DSG then.  

Sure, but it's better to do tests before a Mars mission. And it's even better if there's a space station nearby to go to if something goes awry, provided they can make it to the station in time. 

But the real reason is to have something to do so that jobs are made and/or retained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

I agree with this, but it would be much cheaper to test in LEO.  

In LEO you haven't got as much of the significant radiation problems you have in deep space to properly test it. Also, there is more space junk in LEO than in deep space, and the micrometeorite protection for the DSG, DST and all the other Mars and deep space gizmos is different than all the LEO micrometeorite protection.

Edited by NSEP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Also, there is more space junk in LEO than in deep space, and the micrometeorite protection for the DSG, DST and all the other Mars and deep space gizmos is different than all the LEO micrometeorite protection.

Then you just have more protection from debris than you need.  Doesn't seem enough to merit such a huge increase in cost.  

Its ion propulsion, so they can afford the tiny mass increase than LEO debris would require.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Then you just have more protection from debris than you need.  Doesn't seem enough to merit such a huge increase in cost.  

Its ion propulsion, so they can afford the tiny mass increase than LEO debris would require.    

My guess is that the ion engines are the reason for the DST to be serviced and launched from a lunar orbit and not LEO. So while you wouldn’t necessarily need the DSG you still need SLS and Orion to get your crew and cargo there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted

Think of LEO like a river and deep space like a sea.

In a river, you have quicker contact to the mainland, the water is less salty and you get more leaves and seeds fall on you. While in a sea, the water is salty, there is a lower stream speed and the wind is usually more dangerous.

Although you are travelling on the same medium, the environment might be slightly different and you may want to get your things right. Im not crossing the North Sea with a canoe and im not going across the Rhine with a sailboat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

I agree with this, but it would be much cheaper to test in LEO.  

Cheaper? Yes. Accurate? Not necessarily. Not to mention the significant reduction in vehicle requirements when "launched" from a higher energy orbit.

One significant issue is night time in LEO and how it affects the vehicle. 

Edited by Bill Phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted
On 02.12.2017 at 2:42 AM, Green Baron said:

Ok, i actually read the Nasa announcement (August 2017) for the gateway thing :sticktongue:

 

On 02.12.2017 at 2:42 AM, Green Baron said:

- no fixed orbit (electric propulsion system)

Now we can be sure: they use KSP for the mission planning.
I hope they know about Principia

Spoiler

 

and Persistent Rotation.

So, probably they will plan the flights with RO and SSTU. That' would be wise, they are KSP-proven.

On 02.12.2017 at 2:42 AM, Green Baron said:

- could be a gateway to the moons surface

Spoiler

KYdJN.jpg

 

On 02.12.2017 at 2:42 AM, Green Baron said:

- could be made into a vehicle traveling to Mars

When got bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green Baron

Green Baron

Posted
Posted (edited)

Oh man @kerbiloid, trying to be funny ?

This is where i took the points from: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations

 

 

On Nasa's plans to study human exposure to space i found this:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/heomd_001_-_exploration_objectives_baseline_release_090716.pdf

Tldr: a lot to be learned, little really known yet.

@DAL59, have a look at this, it'll show that your "shooting soldiers" comparison isn't correct. They could get people in a few days home from the moon should they show whatever symptoms, not so from a Mars trip.

People coming from LEO after 6 months are in a bad shape, they have to be carried away, bones and muscles atrophied, arteries stiffened, eyesight lowered and with the immune system damaged. Despite 2 hours training/day. And they were top fit before. So there is still a long way to go research wise before somebody gets a ticket to Mars, if its not a one- or even one-half-way ticket.

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted

After staring at the same presentation i found something weird.

Wich one is the right lander?

I think the one on the right is the reusable one, and the one on the left is the long duration one?

qCFfZRj.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted (edited)

Those are "artist impression" conceptual renderings. No engineering work has been done on a lunar lander at this point. The ascent module is vaguely based on Altair, but the rest is pure fiction.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDE

DDE

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, NSEP said:

After staring at the same presentation i found something weird.

Wich one is the right lander?

I think the one on the right is the reusable one, and the one on the left is the long duration one?

The one on the right looks way, WAY too much like an LK.

...Ultimately, I can only infer that the one on the left is actually the Mars lander/ascent vehicle package. Last time I saw a lander that big it was a Direct Ascent Moon-Earth vehicle with a hydrolox landing stage.

You're not going to put your long-duration habit into your ascent vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...