NASA wants to prolong ISS operation till 2028-2030

[tater]

24 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It's damn cool to see fly overhead in the night sky.

Was parents' night at school last night, and my watch tapped me to say that ISS was overhead (we were done for the night, and walking across the quad). There it was, brighter than Jupiter. Never gets old for me.

Edited September 21, 2018 by tater

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, Xd the great said:

Another reason to cancel the moon space station.

I don't see how that's relevant. ISS isn't going to the Moon. I mean, kt probably could, but it's not designed for that and is about 10 times as massive as the largest thing we've sent to TLI. 

We need to learn about deep space vehicles for human use. LEO isn't deep space.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Bill Phil

[kerbiloid]

17 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

We need to learn about deep space vehicles for human use. LEO isn't deep space.

Long-lasting zero-G doesn't need deep space.
As well, the rad-protection doesn't. It can be simulated right on the ground.

So, imho we need deep space only to test the prototype of a real interplanetary spaceship, to be sure that it's safe to send it to Mars.

Edited September 21, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Bill Phil]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Long-lasting zero-G doesn't need deep space.
As well, the rad-protection doesn't. It can be simulated right on the ground.

So, imho we need deep space only to test the prototype of a real interplanetary spaceship, to be sure that it's safe to send it to Mars.

And that's partly what the plan is.

[tater]

18 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

We need to learn about deep space vehicles for human use. LEO isn't deep space.

I don't buy this at all. Gateway is what it is precisely because it is someplace that Orion is capable of going.

It's not there to work out deep space issues, it's a destination for Orion. There is nothing novel about deep space as they plan to use Gateway. 15 day trips (including transit?) at best once a year. There's not really much data to get in 2 weeks, and I don't think any of the proposed modules include massive amounts of shielding to see how that works out.

The bigger issue is budget.

The fixed program cost of SLS/Orion is about what we spend annually on ISS right now. Unless NASA gets a 10% budget boost, they can't do both.

Just now, Bill Phil said:

And that's partly what the plan is.

Not really. They're basically talking about flying either actual unflown ISS hardware, or newer versions. Nothing about it is an interplanetary spaceship. On top of that, take life support as a primary example: how does 15 days once a year teach you about 3 year missions, exactly?

[Bill Phil]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

I don't buy this at all. Gateway is what it is precisely because it is someplace that Orion is capable of going.

It's not there to work out deep space issues, it's a destination for Orion. There is nothing novel about deep space as they plan to use Gateway. 15 day trips (including transit?) at best once a year. There's not really much data to get in 2 weeks, and I don't think any of the proposed modules include massive amounts of shielding to see how that works out.

The bigger issue is budget.

The fixed program cost of SLS/Orion is about what we spend annually on ISS right now. Unless NASA gets a 10% budget boost, they can't do both.

Oh it's definitely an artificial destination, and arguably necessary for a deep space mission. The failings of SLS are the main reason for its problems. Block 1 can't throw enough mass to TLI to send anything other than Orion. We may see commercial programs for the gateway, though, which would be a good excuse for it - serving as a source of juicy government contracts that help justify development of commercial capability in cislunar space.

I'd much rather NASA have a bigger budget, but that's not likely.

[tater]

It can certainly leverage commercial cislunar, but as delivery to someplace useless.

The only plausible interplanetary ship that would hever be at the Gateway (because it's the only one really proposed to be built there) is the LockMart concept, and they will be happy to build it if NASA gives them more money that SLS/Orion already costs.

That's simply not going to happen.

2+ B$/year for ISS, plus 3+ B$/yr for Gateway, plus a few B$/yr for a spaceship?

Gateway is a money hole. IMO. The only possible plus is that some of the money goes to SpaceX and Blue Origin at some point (which quickly obviates the need for Gateway since neither want a station someplace useless).

[sh1pman]

They should just book a custom BFS outfitted with lab equipment and park it around the Moon. 10 times more habitable volume, fuel depot, can land on the Moon (if refueled, super cheap bc reusability), can return to Earth, has huge solar arrays, can stay operational in deep space for years (by design), looks badass.

And don't go saying "BFS is just a concept", DSG is a concept just as much.

[kerbiloid]

They can increase the ISS  expeditions duration. So, at once spend twice less money and study year-long expeditions.

Spoiler

 

[tater]

Any new technology for "deep space" that requires long term testing and iteration should be in LEO. Not at ISS, but flying alone, potentially. It could even be in the same orbit, leading or trailing by some accessible distance (10s to hundreds of km).

If the new station life support isn't working, then you swap it out (such a testbed should be designed with swapout of critical elements for TRL testing, so that they can actually make use of the proximity to Earth).

[Canopus]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

Any new technology for "deep space" that requires long term testing and iteration should be in LEO. Not at ISS, but flying alone, potentially. It could even be in the same orbit, leading or trailing by some accessible distance (10s to hundreds of km).

If you want to expose hardware to conditions like in those found in interplanetary space, LEO is not enough. 

56 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

They should just book a custom BFS outfitted with lab equipment and park it around the Moon. 10 times more habitable volume, fuel depot, can land on the Moon (if refueled, super cheap bc reusability), can return to Earth, has huge solar arrays, can stay operational in deep space for years (by design), looks badass.

And don't go saying "BFS is just a concept", DSG is a concept just as much.

Can‘t compare the two at all, One is a modular spaceraft as demonstrated in LEO, operating in an environment that has been visited by manned Spacecraft already, and well the other is just a big bag of promisses that will either not work as advertised or come 15 years too late.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, Canopus said:

If you want to expose hardware to conditions like in those found in interplanetary space, LEO is not enough. 

1. The current principal stumbling block is life support that can function for years at a time without constant repair and parts replacement.

2. If you require deep space, then you also require that crew be in the vehicle for meaningful time frames. That's not even on the table for Gateway until 2027+

What else is there to test? Materials degradation? You could fly samples into an appropriate Earth orbit (no crew), then drop it down (have a PPE with ion engines) for recovery at ISS to test back at a lab on Earth.

I see no reason for an expensive crew hab is a useless lunar orbit that has no chance of getting used enough to gather any useful data until it finally gets real missions likely over 10 years from now. It's an opportunity cost issue. Better to build something NOW, and test it closer to home if it requires crew, and test other elements as robots if it really requires deep space.

15 minutes ago, Canopus said:

the other is just a big bag of promisses that will either not work as advertised or come 15 years too late. 

SLS/Orion?

[Canopus]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

SLS/Orion?

disposable super heavy lift rockets and a crew vehicle like orion have existed. But a completely reusable heavy lift launch vehicle were the second stage doubles as a planetary lander and an interplanetary Spacecraft acommodating a crew of 40 for months or even years? How can you compare these two? And how are people so ready to buy into this  BFR craze?

[sh1pman]

15 minutes ago, Canopus said:

disposable super heavy lift rockets and a crew vehicle like orion have existed. But a completely reusable heavy lift launch vehicle were the second stage doubles as a planetary lander and an interplanetary Spacecraft acommodating a crew of 40 for months or even years? How can you compare these two? And how are people so ready to buy into this  BFR craze?

No reason to be so pessimistic about SpaceX... They’ve got the best people in the industry. It’s not some Elon’s crazy dream, Shotwell seems confident about BFR too, and they already started building it.

[Canopus]

19 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

No reason to be so pessimistic about SpaceX... They’ve got the best people in the industry. It’s not some Elon’s crazy dream, Shotwell seems confident about BFR too, and they already started building it.

I’d say i’m just realistic not pessimistic. What SpaceX has accomplished is impressive and they certainly have the good engineers, but the jump from a semi-reusable launch vehicle that operates for ours at the most to this Pulp style rocketship is unfeasible.

I’m looking forward to be proven wrong but i suspect it will take a decade or two though.

[Cassel]

...

Edited September 25, 2018 by Cassel

[tater]

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

disposable super heavy lift rockets and a crew vehicle like orion have existed. But a completely reusable heavy lift launch vehicle were the second stage doubles as a planetary lander and an interplanetary Spacecraft acommodating a crew of 40 for months or even years? How can you compare these two? And how are people so ready to buy into this  BFR craze?

SLS/Orion have been on the table for 12 years now (names changed, same thing, altered (in a bad way)). By the time it first flies it will be 14 years. Hence my reference to your 15 year comment. By the time it flies with crew? Over 15 years.

BFR is certainly incredibly ambitious, but such ideas (completely reusable spacecraft capable of reaching orbit, then other planets) have been around since the 1960s.

The booster is honestly fairly easy for them, it's a giant F9. With a throw-away upper stage it makes a SLS look lousy, and would be far, far cheaper than SLS. The upper stage is  certainly vastly more challenging. That said, it's worth trying.

This thread is about ISS, and Gateway came up as something to apparently run concurrently. I can't see that happening. They are stuck with Gateway, which is a useless waste of time, and money, IMHO.

 

Assume for the sake of argument that Gateway is exactly what we need. That's our mission, a cislunar facility to test deep space operations, and to function as a base for lunar, then martian exploration. Sound reasonable?

OK. Now, design a vehicle, or set of vehicles to enable that goal. Use extant LVs, plus any you need to design from scratch. Do you design Orion or SLS at all as it exists now? Because if you do, you're crazy. You'd design a smaller capsule, probably (it's just a taxi to cislunar, after all). You'd design a service module that gets your crew to a useful orbit around the Moon, instead of putting the Gateway in the only place a lousy SM can return from. You'd probably not man-rate the HLV, but use it exclusively to throw cargo (habs, propellants, etc) to cislunar. You'd use smaller vehicles to loft crew. Even distributed launches, and EOR mission profiles if needed, since this is an operationally useful skill to develop. You'd make ACES (because it's awesome). You'd make an HLV that could fly with the desired optimal launch cadence, not one that flies once a year for 3 BILLION dollars (not counting dev costs).

So if Gateway is awesome, then they are doing it wrong.

 

[wumpus]

5 hours ago, tater said:

I don't buy this at all. Gateway is what it is precisely because it is someplace that Orion is capable of going.

It's not there to work out deep space issues, it's a destination for Orion. There is nothing novel about deep space as they plan to use Gateway. 15 day trips (including transit?) at best once a year. There's not really much data to get in 2 weeks, and I don't think any of the proposed modules include massive amounts of shielding to see how that works out.

To be honest, the ISS was budgeted as someplace for the Shuttle to go.

But ISS is also the "least expensive way" to get that much space experience.  Out where the Gateway is, all you get is more radiation, and the chance for life threatening radiation bursts.  But otherwise very little "real space experience" that you don't get on ISS.

The delta-v from LEO to the Moon (LTI) is ~3000m/s.  The delta-v from LEO to Mars intercept is ~4000m/s.  I can't imagine an Adrin cycler needing a significantly higher delta-v than LTI, and such a gateway would be a *real* gateway (although I'm afraid you need a separate cycler to come home).

Other options are to put the thing in L2, if you really wanted a gateway, but while things might hang out there, virtually all of it could be automated.  The only really effective way to use a crewed "Gateway" is as a cycler.

[magnemoe]

46 minutes ago, tater said:

 1. The current principal stumbling block is life support that can function for years at a time without constant repair and parts replacement.

2. If you require deep space, then you also require that crew be in the vehicle for meaningful time frames. That's not even on the table for Gateway until 2027+

What else is there to test? Materials degradation? You could fly samples into an appropriate Earth orbit (no crew), then drop it down (have a PPE with ion engines) for recovery at ISS to test back at a lab on Earth.

 I see no reason for an expensive crew hab is a useless lunar orbit that has no chance of getting used enough to gather any useful data until it finally gets real missions likely over 10 years from now. It's an opportunity cost issue. Better to build something NOW, and test it closer to home if it requires crew, and test other elements as robots if it really requires deep space.

Yes, note that an problem with IIS is that the crew is so small they use a lot of their time housekeeping. 
IIS is likely to be replaced by an commercial space station who NASA has stated interest in buying into. Benefit is that operational cost would be shared. 
However most private space operations run on Musk time. 

Agree that an base in moon orbit is just relevant for supporting operations on moon surface, that is operations of an significant size. 
Easier ways to rest equipment and health hazards of deep space and something who should be done, 

[Cheif Operations Director]

I would like it to last that long but given the recent hole fiasco I do not thing past 24' is a good idea

[tater]

I actually want it to go away.

Bridenstine said today that NASA doesn't want there to be any gap in LEO, but that such a solution likely involves commercial space unless they are given a lot more money.

If SLS wasn't such a pig in terms of cash, they could simply run a crew space program for X billion, and some goes to gateway, some to commercial LEO...

 

[IncongruousGoat]

On 9/21/2018 at 8:17 AM, mikegarrison said:

Depends on your time horizon. I actually don't object to paying taxes that cover the ISS, despite that I am pretty sure it has no real reason to exist except that it gives us some experience at living in space.

You'd be surprised. Obviously there's a bunch of research done on the ISS about long-term human spaceflight, but there's also good research in biology, medicine, materials science, inorganic chemistry, climatology, and a number of other fields that simply can't be done outside of the microgravity environment of the ISS. Plus, now that private companies are being allowed to fly experiments to the space station, the commercial sector is getting in on the microgravity research game, which is opening up all kinds of opportunities for new research. It's not like the astronauts that are on the ISS are up there just for kicks - it's a serious platform for science. NASA is just terrible at advertising what the ISS does. For example, did you know that the astronauts aboard the ISS have been growing vegetables for crew consumption on-station for years? I'm willing to bet that even most space nerds aren't aware of this.

[tater]

Most serious microgravity experiments would really need to be free fliers I think to avoid all the vibration of the ISS (because people are bouncing around).

I don't mind the idea of a station money wise, I just think we'd do better to start fresh.

[insert_name]

3 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I would like it to last that long but given the recent hole fiasco I do not thing past 24' is a good idea

the hole was in a soyuz though, not the station itself

[Cassel]

It might be cheaper to fly ISS into the moon's orbit instead of building a completely new station? Of course, if its modules can work for several years.