Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: Except that the only orbit Orion can do is pretty much useless for exploring the Moon. It's just more ISS stuff, but in a worse radiation environment. What's the official statement from Nasa as to the purpose of it ? Exploring the moon isn't the main theme i can imagine. There isn't exactly the most on it. A lavatube doesn't demand our full attention i would think ? Moon missions, if necessary, will probably be a different thing and carried out directly from earth. But that is just an unqualified assumption from my side :-) This may be a dumb and uninformed question, but why can Orion only do one specific orbit and in how far is it useless ? Edited December 1, 2017 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, Green Baron said: What's the official statement from Nasa as to the purpose of it ? Exploring the moon isn't the main theme i can imagine. There isn't exactly the most on it. A lavatube doesn't demand our full attention i would think ? Moon missions, if necessary, will probably be a different thing and carried out directly from earth. But that is just an unqualified assumption from my side :-) This may be a dumb and uninformed question, but why can Orion only do one specific orbit and in how far is it useless ? The Orion SM cannot insert into a lower lunar orbit and still have any dv left to come home (it has about 1000m/s less dv than the Apollo CSM/LEM combo). The ICPS or EUS can only manage a TLI burn. So they were stuck with the various orbits they've looked at DRO, NRO, L2, etc. as the insertion burn is much smaller, as is the dv to return to Earth. So any lunar exploration closer to the Moon (the DRO they are looking at is what, 70,000km from the Moon?) is at least 2 SLS launches, one for the Orion, and one for a lander with enough dv to do the LOI burn for the pair, and land (like Altair, which is why the thing was so huge). 2 SLS launches, days apart (Altair uses Rl-10s, and some other lander concepts are also RL-10 based, so boil off). That's simply never going to happen I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 I see. So exploring the moon is not the main theme of the "gateway" (what a name), rather preparing for longer stays of humans in space. That was the initial point, wasn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Just now, Green Baron said: I see. So exploring the moon is not the main theme of the "gateway" (what a name), rather preparing for longer stays of humans in space. That was the initial point, wasn't it ? Well, they're putting lipstick on the pig, I would say, lol. The DSG is not a terrible idea for what they are stuck with. The stated purpose is to work out BLEO human spaceflight. SO they'd go there and... do stuff, then come back. It would require better life support systems (given the distance and turn time), so it's a way to force a more modern system than ISS is running. The LockMart notions have them building their Mars concept at DSG for a sort of dry run out there. Maybe they teleoperate some stuff on the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Yippeeeh ! :-) Yep, that's the missing data before we can send anybody in the direction of Mars with some peace of conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 6 minutes ago, Green Baron said: Yippeeeh ! :-) Yep, that's the missing data before we can send anybody in the direction of Mars with some peace of conscience. True enough, there is a lot of work to do before any attempt at "real" BLEO work that truly goes BEO altogether. ISS has so much legacy equipment, and the crew spends so much time just maintaining the place that the amount of other work they can do is extremely limited. Maybe DSG forces a more efficient system (where the astronauts are able to do more concentrated science/engineering work, rather than housekeeping). The whole project was predicated on 2 flights a year for the LV as a minimum, though, and I have trouble imagining that happening. Leveraged by commercial partners would help, since NASA would be getting stuff there for a tiny fraction of the SLS cost of maybe 1.5 B$ per launch if they managed 2 a year (twice that if they fly once). If SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin can deliver to DSG, though, it obviates SLS entirely, except for Orion... which can't get past DSG anyway. SLS/Orion doesn't really survive a lot of scrutiny, and if the new space market (even including ULA at this point) had some of the SLS/Orion cash, I think they'd do much more with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 hours ago, tater said: Maybe they teleoperate some stuff on the Moon. Halfway point for robotic recovery of lunar samples seems to be a theme, too. Roscosmos’s proposed node module features two unmanned-only docking ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Of course if you can get a lander from the Moon to DSG, you could have just sent it home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, tater said: Of course if you can get a lander from the Moon to DSG, you could have just sent it home. Some people seem to have a major reentry scare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightfury Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Just now, DDE said: Some people seem to have a major reentry scare. Looks not very good... which (non)landing was this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 8 hours ago, Green Baron said: The idea of a station around the moon sounds like the logical next step to me. Why? A base on the moon is reasonable, but what does a base around the moon do for anything? It takes less delta vee to assemble a Mars ship in LEO. 3 hours ago, tater said: Maybe they teleoperate some stuff on the Moon. Are you saying that with modern computers, we couldn't handle a 1 second time delay? 3 hours ago, tater said: SO they'd go there and... do stuff, then come back. Its literally just repeating apollo 8 for an entire decade or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Why? A base on the moon is reasonable, but what does a base around the moon do for anything? It takes less delta vee to assemble a Mars ship in LEO. You are correct if it was about assembling an interplanetary ship, that makes more sense in LEO than around the moon in terms of dV. But the gateway is not (yet) about assembling a Mars ship but besides other things rather about studying the effects of interplanetary space on humans. A station on ground on the Moon would cost more dV to reach than an orbital station, too much for Orion as @tater has pointed out. So the moons surface is out of reach for any studies that involve humans. Besides that it is my personal opinion that there is nothing interesting on the Moon. Edit: i mean scientifically interesting. If you want a station to show presence or so than ok, why not. Edited December 1, 2017 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Just now, Green Baron said: Besides that it is my personal opinion that there is nothing interesting on the Moon. I agree, but at least there's geology. Orbital space accomplishes nothing. 1 minute ago, Green Baron said: other things rather about studying the effects of interplanetary space on humans. To paraphrase Zubrin, isn't that like shooting soldiers to study wound pathology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, DAL59 said: To paraphrase Zubrin, isn't that like shooting soldiers to study wound pathology? I can't follow you, i am sorry ... Should it turn out that people get sick after a stay of multiple weeks or months they can come home in a few days from the Moon. Iif a ship is docked and ready like it is the case on the ISS, judging from the pictures. On journey to Mars means 2-3 years out there, no matter what. 1 hour ago, Nightfury said: Looks not very good... which (non)landing was this ? Hayabusa ? Edited December 1, 2017 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nightfury said: Looks not very good... which (non)landing was this ? Genesis. The one when they went full Corona and tried to catch it in mid-air. Edited December 1, 2017 by DDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 http://spacenews.com/nasa-weighs-new-mobile-launcher-for-sls/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 hours ago, DAL59 said: Why? A base on the moon is reasonable, but what does a base around the moon do for anything? It takes less delta vee to assemble a Mars ship in LEO. Because Orion can’t do that. Orion and SLS have the goal of employing many thousands of people in 47(!) States. Travel to space is incidental. 2 hours ago, DAL59 said: Are you saying that with modern computers, we couldn't handle a 1 second time delay? I said nothing of the sort. Robots are better at all science collection on hard to get places than people. I am saying they might do that for something to do with their time. 2 hours ago, DAL59 said: Its literally just repeating apollo 8 for an entire decade or more. No, Apollo 8 was vastly closer to the Moon, lol, so far less interesting at DSG. What they will really do I have no idea. Nothing that requires people, unless you count being radiation exposure guinea pigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, DAL59 said: It takes less delta vee to assemble a Mars ship in LEO. They don‘t wan‘t to build a mars ship. The DST they are proposing is launched in one piece and only refueled at the DSG. And if that works out it would be vastly better than the constellation way, Which required 5 Ares V Launches to LEO for one Mars mission. Still i think that a Mars mission is way out of reach anyway and most likely won‘t happen for another 30 years. Edited December 1, 2017 by Canopus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 29 minutes ago, tater said: Orion and SLS have the goal of employing many thousands of people in 47(!) States. Travel to space is incidental. Why can’t they just employ thousands of people AND do useful things in space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Canopus said: is way out of reach anyway We went to the moon with 1960s computers and no reusable rockets. 49 minutes ago, tater said: Orion and SLS have the goal of employing many thousands of people in 47(!) States. Travel to space is incidental. That's my point. NASA isn't making real progress. Wouldn't a manned mars mission give even more jobs though? Edited December 1, 2017 by DAL59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, DAL59 said: We went to the moon with 1960s computers and no reusable rockets. Yeah, to the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Even with chemical rockets and existing tech, we could have landed on Mars in the 80s. In fact, that was the plan until the space funding got cut at the end of apollo. We could certainly do it today, and cheaper, now that we have reusable launchers, better computers, and inflatable habitats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 1 minute ago, DAL59 said: Even with chemical rockets and existing tech, we could have landed on Mars in the 80s. Could have. Did it happen? No. Will it happen in the 30s? I highly doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 I highly doubt it will happen in the 30s, because it will happen in 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts