Some Interesting Ideas From the Other Side of the Pond
I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but I wanted to relay an interesting paper that Keith Cowing reported on NASAWatch today. Now, if I were someone at the ESA, I'd probably be taking NASA's grand plans about Constellation with an appropriate sized grain of salt right about now. But there were some good ideas overall:
- The report mentioned that our ISS experience shows the importance of having redundant transportation methods (ie imagine what would've happened to ISS if Soyuz didn't exist). I don't think that redundant transportation method should necessarily be another government-centric transportation system, but I agree wholeheartedly that monocultures are a bad idea.
- The report also mentioned that having a safe-haven in LLO is one of the best ways to increase the safety and flexibility of a lunar exploration program. Right now, most of the danger associated with lunar exploration have to do with operations on or near the moon. The current architecture does nothing to reduce those risks, but instead focuses on the much sexier earth-to-orbit transportation risks. Having some infrastructure in LLO can go a long way to fixing that, while also giving you some very interesting mission options. Now, I'm still a fan of the idea of Lagrange stations, and I think that in the long-run they'll dominate the traffic in the lunar half of cislunar space. I just think that there is a small, and critical niche filled by one or more small polar LLO stations. I've been planning to write up my ideas on this concept for over two months now, so can someone poke me in a few weeks if I haven't followed up on this thought?
- Unlike NASA they don't seem to be deathly afraid of on-orbit assembly when it makes sense. Of course, they don't have an HLV fetish that they have to rationalize...
Labels: ESAS, International Space Collaboration, Lunar Commerce, NASA, Space Development, Space Transportation

5 Comments:
It's an interesting paper. I'm glad that ESA is exploring their options, because I'm starting to get that old sinking feeling about NASA. They seem to be slipping further and further behind.
I think private ventures are going to catch up to them and surpass them, I'm just not sure of the time frame.
You might, in future discussions, point out why a polar orbit for the station makes the most sense (rather than equatorial). I understand that a polar orbit covers all of the surface, eventually, but it's also a more expensive orbit to attain from the surface.
Is it that the delta-V difference for the moon is insignificant because the moon rotates so slowly? I'm not familiar with the numbers for the moon... And coming from Earth, is polar orbit just as easy as equatorial? I would think so, but I've never calculated anything.
I'm also curious why, "Other ESA orbital infrastructure concepts (LEO, Lagrange points) do not have synergy with NASA's architecture". It seems that some of the tricks you can do with Lissajous and Halo orbits would make L1 pretty attractive...
Thanks for an informative blog!
"...can someone poke me in a few weeks if I haven't followed up on this thought?"
Will try to remember doing that if needed.
Habitat Hermit,
D'oh! It's already been two weeks, hasn't it? I've been really busy lately getting caught-up on work, but I'll try to make some time soon to get another post up.
~Jon
Jon,
It has been a few weeks, more than. What are your ideas on polar LLO infrastructure and Lagrange-ish stuff? "Lagrange" should make me think of L1, L2, or multipliers for coordinate system changes in vector calculus, but instead the first thing that pops into my head is a ZZ Top song.
Regarding a safe haven in LLO, a Bigelow type module could easily be put there by Ares 5. The ascent stage could reach it easily especially if it's in polar orbit. But docking with it on the lunar bound leg by the Orion capsule would require a very narrow launch window from earth. And wouldn't hunkering down in your moon base complete with supplies and radiation shielding make more sense if something go's wrong? A modular design would keep some of the base livable through all but the most catastrophic disaster. An extra habitat 1.000 meters away from the main base would be more practical.
Post a Comment
<< Home