Lunar space station after the ISS?

[szputnyik]

Do you think it would be a good next step in space habitat research to establish a space station in Lunar orbit, after the ISS is decommissioned?

Lunar orbit is outside the Van Allen belts, thus that environment's effect on human biology would be more like interplanetary space encountered on future missions to Mars or other planets.

It is more remote from Earth than a LEO space station, so it encourages more self-reliance, not a bad skill for future interplanetary missions.

It would be a good platform for close observation of the Lunar surface, and future Moon missions, which could be operated with simple shuttling landers between the station and the surface.

When the station orbits above the far side of the Moon, radio noise and light from Earth is completely blocked out, thus it could be a good deep space observatory platform.

What are your thoughts?

[SargeRho]

I think the next step should be a permanent base *on* the Moon. And perhaps a spinning station at one of the Earth-Moon L-Points.

[Nibb31]

Lunar orbits are unstable, which makes the Moon a poor place for a space station.

You need to put it at a Lagrange point or on the surface.

[xrayfishx]

I think the next step should be a permanent base *on* the Moon. And perhaps a spinning station at one of the Earth-Moon L-Points.

The next step being on the Moon seems like a big step. It is much more difficult to land on Moon than to get into an orbit around it. None of the space agencies could maintain a station there.

I actually doubt even a lunar orbit station would be very realistic. Not only would we have to use the SLS for every resupply mission if we want to get any meaningful amount of supplies there.

Another problem would me maintaining the orbit itself. Moon's gravity is not as uniform as earth's (and even that isn't very uniform) so anything orbiting it would need frequent correction burns to remain orbiting it.

I don't think a lunar station is a realistic idea at all. An L-point station is science fiction for now.

Edit: got ninjad

[andrewas]

I think the next step should be a centrifugal habitat in LEO, to perform partial gravity research and test closed loop life support systems in preparation for a mars mission. Among the questions that need answered are - how much gravity do humans need to survive in the long term, and can animals successfully reproduce in partial gravity. That second one is critical long term, if we can't reproduce in martian gravity then we can't colonize it at all.

[SargeRho]

A lunar station would require a sort of ferry between LEO and LMO. Plasma, Fusion or Nuclear Thermal engines could be used for that.

[Sillychris]

This is just a little bit beyond the next step, but I think we seriously need to establish a space elevator on the moon. I also think KSP needs to have a space elevator expansion.

[bigdad84]

We have another decade with the ISS before they even think about disassembling pieces of it (Roscomos) and de-orbiting the rest. The ISS is still an amazing place for science and we have so many oppurtunities to test new space tech that we're wasting. We SHOULD attach a centrifuge and add an inflatable module to the International Space Station. The latter is more of a necessity for a Lunar Station because it will cut the mass to orbit exponentially and will save money by not having to send big bulky modules up.

Edited April 3, 2014 by bigdad84

[Ralathon]

A lunar space station doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a science standpoint and it involves some nasty logistics. Try building an ISS style station around the mun in KSP (Preferably with Real Solar System so you get a real feel for what this entails). You're going to need a lot of very heavy rockets, which means a very expensive space station. So what justifies these costs?:

- Near perfect radio silence on the night side of the moon, useful for astronomical observations.

- Space is pretty similar to interstellar space since its outside the Van Allen belts, so you can research how that affects humans.

- Convenient rendezvouz spot for moonlanders.

I'm probably missing a lot of things here, but its hard to think up things in the first place. And even then you can do most of those things with a unmanned probe, which is way cheaper.

A lunar base makes more sense in my opinion. That way you get the scientific equipment on the surface, so you can scan as much moonrocks as you want without worrying about payload weights. It is also a more convenient expansion point since you have easy access to lunar soil for radiation shielding or some other building material.

[NGTOne]

The one I always thought was interesting was Skylab II, which would be based off a wet-workshop SLS fuel tank at the Earth-Moon L2.

[NASAFanboy]

NASA is working on a EML2 station that has been both proposed by Lockheed, Boeing, and several engineers.

Atleast, as far as I know. All they say is "Blah blah blah flexible bold new path technology blah blah lagrange point", followed by a "oh no you didn't" when you propose developing a lunar lander to develop lunar base technology on the Moon's surface.

[Motokid600]

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt the Skylab astronauts come back stronger and more physically fit then when they left Earth? Just being able to jog and work out in that large space is everything.

[ScallopPotato]

The resupply issue can be addressed by using a VASMIR type space tug. It'd take a 6 month trip - so no fresh fruits or veggies - but it can be done much more efficiently than a chemical transfer craft. So the logistics module could go up on a cheap/reusable Falcon rocket (either Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy), be picked up by the space tug, and 6 months later it's at EML1/2. Also, it'd be a good idea to learn how to grow food in space.

[NASAFanboy]

The resupply issue can be addressed by using a VASMIR type space tug. It'd take a 6 month trip - so no fresh fruits or veggies - but it can be done much more efficiently than a chemical transfer craft. So the logistics module could go up on a cheap/reusable Falcon rocket (either Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy), be picked up by the space tug, and 6 months later it's at EML1/2. Also, it'd be a good idea to learn how to grow food in space.

6 months?

You're telling me that a rocket being advertised by NASA and Ad Astra as capable of reaching Mars in 30 days has to take 6 months to reach the Moon?

What happened? Did the Moon and Mars swap places in the sky?

[SargeRho]

No, and unless you get a very damn light power source that can output a gigawatt, VASIMR isn't getting you to Mars in 30 days. The Lunar ferry would use giant solar arrays and spiral outwards, very slowly.

[cantab]

In my view, if we want to establish a self-sustaining colony on any other worlds, we should first prove we can do that here on Earth. Specifically, we should colonise the interior of Antarctica. With low temperatures like on Mars, long nights like on the Moon, and the requirement to grow all food on site without the benefit of soil, it will be an invaluable stepping stone. If we cannot establish a settlement in Antarctica without relying on constant supply shipments, what hope have we got of expanding beyond Earth?

[DeathFromBelow]

6 months?

You're telling me that a rocket being advertised by NASA and Ad Astra as capable of reaching Mars in 30 days has to take 6 months to reach the Moon?

What happened? Did the Moon and Mars swap places in the sky?

VASIMR can operate at low thrust with high efficiency or high thrust with low efficiency. For unmanned resupply missions you'd want to go with the slow, efficient route to keep it cheap. Going fast takes a lot more power.

Edited April 4, 2014 by DeathFromBelow

[K^2]

Not only would we have to use the SLS for every resupply mission if we want to get any meaningful amount of supplies there.

Another problem would me maintaining the orbit itself. Moon's gravity is not as uniform as earth's (and even that isn't very uniform) so anything orbiting it would need frequent correction burns to remain orbiting it.

Any realistic plan for a Lunar Orbital Station would include an LEO way station. I don't think anyone would seriously consider direct-to-LTO launches for this. Besides that, station keeping would have to be done with VASMIRs and it would have to be far more self sufficient. At very least, better water and air recycling are a must.

But as it should be clear from the above, the next step would be building a LEO way station. It would significantly improve our ability to send missions both in the Earth system and to the inner Sol system. ISS might work as a base for such a station, but a new, dedicated way station with lower inclination might be a much better idea.

[NGTOne]

Any realistic plan for a Lunar Orbital Station would include an LEO way station. I don't think anyone would seriously consider direct-to-LTO launches for this. Besides that, station keeping would have to be done with VASMIRs and it would have to be far more self sufficient. At very least, better water and air recycling are a must.

But as it should be clear from the above, the next step would be building a LEO way station. It would significantly improve our ability to send missions both in the Earth system and to the inner Sol system. ISS might work as a base for such a station, but a new, dedicated way station with lower inclination might be a much better idea.

I understand that the Russians are developing a post-ISS "orbital shipyard" station called OPSEK for more-or-less this purpose.

[cantab]

Any realistic plan for a Lunar Orbital Station would include an LEO way station. I don't think anyone would seriously consider direct-to-LTO launches for this.

Why and why not? The Moon still isn't that far away, I really don't see how you benefit from stopping at LEO.

And the biggest problem with stopping at a LEO station is that the Moon's orbit precesses. You either need to make the LEO station's orbit precess to match it, meaning it uses more fuel, or you face big inclination changes during the lunar transfer orbit.

[CaptRobau]

Lunar orbits are unstable, which makes the Moon a poor place for a space station.

You need to put it at a Lagrange point or on the surface.

There are four frozen orbits around the Moon, in which a spacecraft can stay indefinitely. One Apollo subsatellite was accidentally put close to such an orbit and stayed there for at least three years (after that they terminated tracking). Another subsatellite was not so lucky and crashed into the Moon after only a month. So Lagrange points and the surface aren't the only option.

[K^2]

Why and why not? The Moon still isn't that far away, I really don't see how you benefit from stopping at LEO.

Because LEO is about 2/3 of the way to parking on Lunar, in terms of delta-V, and fuel requirements are exponential. It's the difference between multiple Falcon-9, hopefully Falcon-9R, launches, or wasting a whole SLS just to refresh the crew. Multiple 9R launches can be less than 1/10th of the cost of a single SLS launch you'd need to deliver crew and supplies to Lunar Orbital station.

And that's if you insist on going conventional all the way. As it has been discussed in this thread already, you can have a slow VASMIR tug hauling non-perishables between LEO and Lunar using solar power and a tiny fraction of propellant mass. Once these pieces are in place, delivering fuel, water, air, parts, and at least some of the food to the Lunar Orbital Station can be almost as cheap as delivering them to LEO.

Putting it all together, conservatively, you get crew and perishables delivered to the station at about 1/10th of the cost via way station, and non-perishables, which is most of the supplies, at about 1/50th compared to direct launch.

You'll save enough to cover costs of the way station in under a decade of operation, and seeing how it's something we can use for various Mars missions as well, there is just no contest. Way station is way better.

[WestAir]

I was told that, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that the moon has these random pockets of intense gravity. Pockets strong enough to force any orbiting station to constantly burn fuel to repair its orbit, making the moon a terrible location for a space station.

I think I read that on wikipedia.

[karolus10]

I think That better and bigger future space station might be constructed in future by launching just few big parts (Service/propulsion module followed by inflatable modules like transhab) by falcon heavy or SLS... launch and assembly of ISS by space shuttle was too costly and unnecessarily complicated.

[xrayfishx]

I was told that, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that the moon has these random pockets of intense gravity. Pockets strong enough to force any orbiting station to constantly burn fuel to repair its orbit, making the moon a terrible location for a space station.

I think I read that on wikipedia.

If you read this thread through, you'd know it has been brought up and that there is a solution.