I have to say, having these images posted a few days after the Update certainly looks to be helping to keep this active through the week.
I'm taking a guess here, but the EM Sensor is set on the end of that boom to keep it away from the Probe Electrics, right?
I'm taking a guess here, but the EM Sensor is set on the end of that boom to keep it away from the Probe Electrics, right?
Well, to be honest, the secret is I get these prepared a few weeks in advance, based on information the authors pass me. Spending the whole weekend to model these in 'near real time' would probably leave me single very quickly!
Whilst I don’t have hard figures, I did work out some very rough delta-v, mass and propellant budgets to help design the look of the probe, which came to a wet-mass of about 1000kg. Since the Delta-4065 rocket used to launch it can put around 2 tonnes into TLI, the upshot is that there’s plenty of margin for any extra propellant needed for station keeping in LLO, and the propellant (assumed to be Nitrogen Tetraoxide monopropellant) is dense enough that fitting larger tanks into the spacecraft as modelled shouldn’t be a problem.
Spot on. The electronics on board would generate enough EM emissions to interfere with the sensors on the boom, not to mention stray emissions from the comms antennas and the radar, hence most space probes tend to put these instruments on booms as far from the main body as practical.
Hello Nixonshead,
Great work, as always.
LRP as you've rendered it here looks exactly like what I would expect from an Ames probe - small, cheap, efficient, no nonsense.
I had wondered about station-keeping, too, given the mascons, but what you say makes sense - at least for the projected life of the probe, which it ends up exceeding anyway.
By my reckoning, by the way, the only NASA lunar orbiter probe of the last two decades to exceed LRP's wet mass was 2009's Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter, which weighed in at 1,846 kilograms (4,070 lb). So I think the mass and available propellant sounds fine.
Speaking of Ames, its LADEE probe seems to have left Wallop Island safely over the weekend, off in search of the secrets of the Selenites:
Great work, as always.
LRP as you've rendered it here looks exactly like what I would expect from an Ames probe - small, cheap, efficient, no nonsense.
I had wondered about station-keeping, too, given the mascons, but what you say makes sense - at least for the projected life of the probe, which it ends up exceeding anyway.
By my reckoning, by the way, the only NASA lunar orbiter probe of the last two decades to exceed LRP's wet mass was 2009's Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter, which weighed in at 1,846 kilograms (4,070 lb). So I think the mass and available propellant sounds fine.
Speaking of Ames, its LADEE probe seems to have left Wallop Island safely over the weekend, off in search of the secrets of the Selenites:
So it does! I'd hoped it would work out that way, and I hope everyone doesn't mind the short wait between the Friday updates and the Monday images--after all, it does mean you only have four days between the Monday images and the next update, right?
Anyway, if anyone has any strong objections, we can switch, but for the moment this seems to be working.Indeed, Nixonshead did his usual wonderful job of capturing the spirit of the vehicle we intended--you can see the comsat roots very strongly, and yet it feels like a probe.
Just a note, LRP's instrument kit and observations are intended to very closely parallel OTL LRO details, so and resulting discoveries are intended to be fairly convergent. Essentially, if there's an OTL picture of the moon LRO has taken, assume LRP has yielded something like it ITTL by the end of its mission.
Indeed it has! I was not under the flight path, so I had to content myself with the stream and the pictures afterwards (this is my favorite, I think), but it seems like it put on a great show for the northeast. Added a factor to a post later in Part III I hadn't previously considered, as a matter of fact.
No, there aren't other modules available, because servicing really isn't an option. The Block III+ MM has to fit into about 3.25 tons, which is very much not a lot. Only when the Saturn M02 and Block IV come into being would it be really doable to fit serving equipment into the mass margin allocated to the MM. By that point (~1987 entry into service) the KH-9 is gone and the KH-11 is into service. Without film replacement, the only reason to service would be fuel, and that's best solved by just allocating more mass for fuel in the first place. (The OTL KH-11s have orbital lifespans of about 13 years, so...no huge issue). Most Earth-orbiting sats (including, of course, the DoD sats, but also scientific imaging satellites) are also in polar orbits, or even sun-synchronous orbits. These can't be accessed from Canveral, meaning that NASA or the DoD would need to invest a lot of money into a Vandenberg Apollo site. even once active, an Apollo mission here still costs about $250 million to fly, plus more to train the crew on specific EVA and orbital operations if you're doing anything other than fly to Spacelab/Freedom. That rapidly approaches the cost of just flying a replacement sat even without taking into account the amortization of the
polar launch site. So...short answer, we don't see any Apollo free flights at all happening in the area covered by Part II.
No kidding about the conflict between going to geologically interesting sites, easy-to-access equatorial sites, polar sites for bases or looking for water. It's a lot to balance, and it makes me feel really feel bad for the poor saps in-timeline and out who have to pick the landing sites. Let's see who's got to do that out-of-TL...*reads: workable goblin and e of..* Ah, dang it.
No kidding about the conflict between going to geologically interesting sites, easy-to-access equatorial sites, polar sites for bases or looking for water. It's a lot to balance, and it makes me feel really feel bad for the poor saps in-timeline and out who have to pick the landing sites. Let's see who's got to do that out-of-TL...*reads: workable goblin and e of..* Ah, dang it.
That's for sure! You've got:
- Mountainous Terrain
- Lava Tubes Sites
- North and South Poles
- The Mascons
- The Far Side
- And the Original Landing Sites
And with that many potential locations, I wouldn't be surprised if they *checks the TL Authors list* snapped and resorted to "eenie meenie miney mo" as their method of selection, complete with hand over eyes.
little bit of topic maybe
NTRS is now 75% back online
during test of search engine on "Apollo application Program"
i found this
ALTERNATE APOLLO MISSIONS - LIBRATION POINTS
by John T.Wheeler, April 1967
his proposal to fly the Apollo CSM to L1 point and store it there, while LM goes to lunar surface and back
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700028191_1970028191.pdf
NTRS is now 75% back online
during test of search engine on "Apollo application Program"
i found this
ALTERNATE APOLLO MISSIONS - LIBRATION POINTS
by John T.Wheeler, April 1967
his proposal to fly the Apollo CSM to L1 point and store it there, while LM goes to lunar surface and back
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700028191_1970028191.pdf
Understandable. Still, aren't the DoD satellites launched by Saturn Multibody from Vandenberg anyway, so lauch site should be prepared to lauch unmanned?
The change from unmanned to manned is not trivial in terms of vehicle access and clean room requirements. It's not billions or anything, but it's a few hundred million at least. And, like I pointed out, even if it was free to get the infrastructure, just the per-mission cost would be close to the cost of just building a replacement bird and flying it.
hello e of pi,
I figured that was the case. It makes perfect sense to cut down the exercise down to size, and it's actually plausible.
As you were going forward with Eyes Turned Skywards last year, I thought a little bit about a) what kind of orbital missions would still require servicing, and b) whether Apollo III+ or IV could even service them in the first place.
In our timeline, there were surprisingly few servicing missions undertaken by the Shuttle - surprising, that is, given how the system was sold on Capitol Hill, while not so surprising given the mounting operating costs and risks that made themselves known as the STS program unfolded. All I can recall is six missions outside the ISS: 1 mission to repair Solar Max (STS-41-C), and 5 missions to repair Hubble.
The Solar Max Mission, of course, turned out to be just a demonstration test, showing early on in the STS program what the Shuttle could do. The satellite itself hardly merited the expense and trouble - it cost only $77 million to build and launch. When you factor in that a Shuttle mission cost about $450 million (pick your year for inflation adjusted numbers), and the realization after the Challenger disaster of the true risk factors to the crew, you quickly realize that it would have been far cheaper and safer to build and launch a replacement Solar Max satellite for what it cost to get five more years of life out of Solar Max. An Apollo III+ or IV mission would obviously cost about half that (actually more - see below), with higher safety margins for the crew...but you're still dealing with a lopsided cost-benefit analysis.
Hubble was a somewhat different matter, at least at first glance. It ended up costing $2.5 billion, and the five servicing missions unquestionably allowed it to generate very significant science well past what would otherwise have been possible. Of course, this ends up begging the question to some degree, since Hubble's costs were in part a factor of the very decision to make it serviceable by the Shuttle, to say nothing of the cost overruns created by delays in the STS program (like Challenger). If you know that servicing is not really an option, your entire approach to design of your probe or satellite is going to be different...and that seems to be just what our authors here did. But even with our timeline,it's a fair question whether NASA would not have been better off designing a more modest, non-servicable Hubble, and simply building new successors once it failed. Granted, of course, whatever cynicism we might have about NASA's inability to cost contain space telescope projects...
So it's hard to see what the need would be to even try to modify an Apollo III+ or IV to do some servicing mission. e of pi has already mentioned DoD payloads; it's hard to think of anything that wouldn't be cheaper and safer just to replace with an entirely new satellite. That said, it seems to me that it might be possible to modify even an Apollo III+, by cutting crew size down (to, say, 2), freeing up some mass for more fuel and a modified MM that might even contain a small robotic arm. But there would be non-trivial costs in developing and building the necessary hardware, and we're still back to the question of what mission could possibly justify the cost and risk to the crew.
The reality is that until launch costs and risks are greatly reduced, and orbital infrastructure becomes much more extensive and valuable, there's no way to justify manned servicing missions. More likely in the intermediate term is the possibility of robotic tugs that might do some of this work.
The good news is - assuming you have not written these chapters yet - you kinda can decide on ALL of them, or at least more than one. After all, Congress has only approved Lunar Sortie missions - not a base, not yet. It seems entirely probable to me that NASA might mount lunar sortie missions to BOTH a polar site with the highest probability of large ice deposits, and to high probability lava tube locations, and wait until results have been evaluated to make a decision on a base location. And, of course, some of this work might be done by robotic precursor missions.
Still, in the end, I think in situ resources will trump the safety advantages of lava tube colonies, at least for an initial man-tended base. Weight remains the biggest issue on the critical path, and so much of that is tied up in fuel and consumables. Water that can be mined and processed on site can help alleviate both.
I figured that was the case. It makes perfect sense to cut down the exercise down to size, and it's actually plausible.
As you were going forward with Eyes Turned Skywards last year, I thought a little bit about a) what kind of orbital missions would still require servicing, and b) whether Apollo III+ or IV could even service them in the first place.
In our timeline, there were surprisingly few servicing missions undertaken by the Shuttle - surprising, that is, given how the system was sold on Capitol Hill, while not so surprising given the mounting operating costs and risks that made themselves known as the STS program unfolded. All I can recall is six missions outside the ISS: 1 mission to repair Solar Max (STS-41-C), and 5 missions to repair Hubble.
The Solar Max Mission, of course, turned out to be just a demonstration test, showing early on in the STS program what the Shuttle could do. The satellite itself hardly merited the expense and trouble - it cost only $77 million to build and launch. When you factor in that a Shuttle mission cost about $450 million (pick your year for inflation adjusted numbers), and the realization after the Challenger disaster of the true risk factors to the crew, you quickly realize that it would have been far cheaper and safer to build and launch a replacement Solar Max satellite for what it cost to get five more years of life out of Solar Max. An Apollo III+ or IV mission would obviously cost about half that (actually more - see below), with higher safety margins for the crew...but you're still dealing with a lopsided cost-benefit analysis.
Hubble was a somewhat different matter, at least at first glance. It ended up costing $2.5 billion, and the five servicing missions unquestionably allowed it to generate very significant science well past what would otherwise have been possible. Of course, this ends up begging the question to some degree, since Hubble's costs were in part a factor of the very decision to make it serviceable by the Shuttle, to say nothing of the cost overruns created by delays in the STS program (like Challenger). If you know that servicing is not really an option, your entire approach to design of your probe or satellite is going to be different...and that seems to be just what our authors here did. But even with our timeline,it's a fair question whether NASA would not have been better off designing a more modest, non-servicable Hubble, and simply building new successors once it failed. Granted, of course, whatever cynicism we might have about NASA's inability to cost contain space telescope projects...
So it's hard to see what the need would be to even try to modify an Apollo III+ or IV to do some servicing mission. e of pi has already mentioned DoD payloads; it's hard to think of anything that wouldn't be cheaper and safer just to replace with an entirely new satellite. That said, it seems to me that it might be possible to modify even an Apollo III+, by cutting crew size down (to, say, 2), freeing up some mass for more fuel and a modified MM that might even contain a small robotic arm. But there would be non-trivial costs in developing and building the necessary hardware, and we're still back to the question of what mission could possibly justify the cost and risk to the crew.
The reality is that until launch costs and risks are greatly reduced, and orbital infrastructure becomes much more extensive and valuable, there's no way to justify manned servicing missions. More likely in the intermediate term is the possibility of robotic tugs that might do some of this work.
No kidding about the conflict between going to geologically interesting sites, easy-to-access equatorial sites, polar sites for bases or looking for water. It's a lot to balance, and it makes me feel really feel bad for the poor saps in-timeline and out who have to pick the landing sites. Let's see who's got to do that out-of-TL...*reads: workable goblin and e of..* Ah, dang it.
The good news is - assuming you have not written these chapters yet - you kinda can decide on ALL of them, or at least more than one. After all, Congress has only approved Lunar Sortie missions - not a base, not yet. It seems entirely probable to me that NASA might mount lunar sortie missions to BOTH a polar site with the highest probability of large ice deposits, and to high probability lava tube locations, and wait until results have been evaluated to make a decision on a base location. And, of course, some of this work might be done by robotic precursor missions.
Still, in the end, I think in situ resources will trump the safety advantages of lava tube colonies, at least for an initial man-tended base. Weight remains the biggest issue on the critical path, and so much of that is tied up in fuel and consumables. Water that can be mined and processed on site can help alleviate both.
It is also a hybrid with Clementine and Lunar Prospector. For obvious reasons, of course, it doesn't have some of the more specialized (read: water-oriented) instruments carried by Prospector and LRO. After all, they weren't expecting to find any.
No kidding about the conflict between going to geologically interesting sites, easy-to-access equatorial sites, polar sites for bases or looking for water. It's a lot to balance, and it makes me feel really feel bad for the poor saps in-timeline and out who have to pick the landing sites. Let's see who's got to do that out-of-TL...*reads: workable goblin and e of..* Ah, dang it.
So me, basically?
Anyways, we're aware of the multiplicity of options available and have been reviewing the options for a while. It's safe to say several possibilities will be explored. Also, remember the lava tube thing is a Moon Society thing, not a NASA thing. The former are not completely voiceless, but NASA has its own internal process for deciding on landing sites...which probably will have a lot more input from geologists than space activists.
Regarding orbital servicing--if at some point the need comes up overlapping the lifespan of the Saturn Multibody family--or really at any time at all--I figure the thing to do is develop an orbital Repair Truck, of whatever mass--the 20 tonne mass of an M02 launch or the greater mass of the heavier options--and launch it unmanned to dock with the space station. Then send up Apollo Block IV missions with the MM designed to mate with the Repair Truck. It would be just the control cab, and would carry specific parts. We might also need to send up an Aardvark with the fuel for the mission and/or heavy repair or augmentation parts.
So the repair crew, perhaps with less than 5 astronauts, goes up on their own M02 launch, perhaps preceded by an Aardvark that has previously flown to the space station and transferred fuel and heavy repair parts to the Repair Truck. The repair Apollo mission docks direct with the Truck, suitably supplied already, and operates as a big, double-sized spacecraft, not unlike Block II Apollo with LEM. Except that the Truck has its own (hypergolic of course--it goes without saying except I always scream and get the vapors with hypergolics so I had to say it) fuel supply and engines. The repair team astronauts fly the integrated ship to the satellite and work on it.
I was trying to imagine what such a Repair Truck might be like--I figure, in addition to fuel tanks, engines, and racks for the specific repair parts, its front end is two teleoperated things--an arm like the Canadarm, which reaches out and grips the satellite, and a "homunculus" which is a glorified glove box. The only habitable part of the Repair truck is a little antechamber just beyond the docking hatch of the MM; during operations the hatch is open and one astronaut snuggles into an operating harness, that articulates with their arm, hand and finger movements, and head movements--the operator has their face snugged up to a VR optical readout that gives them high definition TV (perhaps in alternate frequencies to visible light, as an option) and a heads-up display. The operator's feet control a simplified Canadarm type crane. At the working end, on the other side of the Truck, is the "homunculus," a droid-looking thing with two arms (five fingers) and a head that holds the cameras. One operator, using a simpler Canadarm interface either built in to the MM or another part of the Truck control annex, grabs the satellite, and controls its gross position and orientation (and also has simplified control of the Truck-Apollo combo as a spaceship) and the other takes a virtual spacewalk--but without having to suit up or prebreathe or any of that nonsense--and does the repair job, using the homunculus as a virtual body.
It would only make sense to design this thing if repair jobs of this type turn out to be cost-effective after all, which given the commentary above, that I can hardly quarrel with, seems unlikely.
But I wanted to point out, the mass need not be limited to a Block III+ or even Block IV mission module mass allowance.
And it should be remembered, the Block III+ and IV require that at least some of the MM mass be available for crew habitation, at least if the plan is to launch 5 astronauts* with every advanced Apollo. (Given the price tag of a launch, the incentive is very strong to get as many astronauts into orbit as possible.)
One potentially nifty thing about the Block III+/IV design is, if you want to go back to three or even just two crew members, the entire mass allocation of the MM can be repurposed to non-habitation uses. Or, the MM can be shrunken, or eliminated, and the mass allotment added to an expanded version of the Service Module for extended delta-V, as for a deeper space mission--going out to the Lunar neighborhood again for instance.
But I certainly haven't thought of any specific missions that would require these capabilities. So far it seems to make sense to make standardized MMs that offer extra habitation space for the other two space travelers and serve as mini-Aardvarks for supplies the five astronauts need for a space station mission, and simply add every mission-specific capability in the form of modules added to the station.
The various free-flying missions suggested (mainly ones where attachment to the station would tend to defeat the purpose) would seem most likely to be launched as separate satellites, which would rarely if ever need any kind of servicing. They'd just operate as designed until they reached the end of their service life, the way most posters here assume all satellites would.
I have to say that even though I have yet to imagine a mission that would actually justify developing it, I like my Repair Truck concept! In addition to mating to a suitably designed Block IV Apollo, there might be an alternative auxiliary control pod that goes up as part of an AARDV launch, that plugs in to the Truck to control it in the vicinity of the space station, again allowing spacewalk capabilities (and perhaps giving the repair crewmember superhuman abilities--mainly strength) without anyone actually getting into a space suit.
The point here is, if repair work in orbit turns out to be a sensible way to operate, we might want to avoid the need for actual spacewalks on one hand--and on the other, we might not want to throw away the machinery I''ve imagined with a disposable MM. I'm suggesting it's a piece of equipment that is kept handy on orbit for years and many uses.
---
*I'm using "astronaut" in the loose sense of "any human being launched into space by NASA or under NASA auspices," not in the proper sense of the pilot corps that I gather it is restricted to ITTL. I like it because it is gender-neutral, as opposed to "crew man," and less awkward than the phrases "crew member(s)" or "mission specialist(s)"
So the repair crew, perhaps with less than 5 astronauts, goes up on their own M02 launch, perhaps preceded by an Aardvark that has previously flown to the space station and transferred fuel and heavy repair parts to the Repair Truck. The repair Apollo mission docks direct with the Truck, suitably supplied already, and operates as a big, double-sized spacecraft, not unlike Block II Apollo with LEM. Except that the Truck has its own (hypergolic of course--it goes without saying except I always scream and get the vapors with hypergolics so I had to say it
) fuel supply and engines. The repair team astronauts fly the integrated ship to the satellite and work on it.I was trying to imagine what such a Repair Truck might be like--I figure, in addition to fuel tanks, engines, and racks for the specific repair parts, its front end is two teleoperated things--an arm like the Canadarm, which reaches out and grips the satellite, and a "homunculus" which is a glorified glove box. The only habitable part of the Repair truck is a little antechamber just beyond the docking hatch of the MM; during operations the hatch is open and one astronaut snuggles into an operating harness, that articulates with their arm, hand and finger movements, and head movements--the operator has their face snugged up to a VR optical readout that gives them high definition TV (perhaps in alternate frequencies to visible light, as an option) and a heads-up display. The operator's feet control a simplified Canadarm type crane. At the working end, on the other side of the Truck, is the "homunculus," a droid-looking thing with two arms (five fingers) and a head that holds the cameras. One operator, using a simpler Canadarm interface either built in to the MM or another part of the Truck control annex, grabs the satellite, and controls its gross position and orientation (and also has simplified control of the Truck-Apollo combo as a spaceship) and the other takes a virtual spacewalk--but without having to suit up or prebreathe or any of that nonsense--and does the repair job, using the homunculus as a virtual body.
It would only make sense to design this thing if repair jobs of this type turn out to be cost-effective after all, which given the commentary above, that I can hardly quarrel with, seems unlikely.
But I wanted to point out, the mass need not be limited to a Block III+ or even Block IV mission module mass allowance.
And it should be remembered, the Block III+ and IV require that at least some of the MM mass be available for crew habitation, at least if the plan is to launch 5 astronauts* with every advanced Apollo. (Given the price tag of a launch, the incentive is very strong to get as many astronauts into orbit as possible.)
One potentially nifty thing about the Block III+/IV design is, if you want to go back to three or even just two crew members, the entire mass allocation of the MM can be repurposed to non-habitation uses. Or, the MM can be shrunken, or eliminated, and the mass allotment added to an expanded version of the Service Module for extended delta-V, as for a deeper space mission--going out to the Lunar neighborhood again for instance.
But I certainly haven't thought of any specific missions that would require these capabilities. So far it seems to make sense to make standardized MMs that offer extra habitation space for the other two space travelers and serve as mini-Aardvarks for supplies the five astronauts need for a space station mission, and simply add every mission-specific capability in the form of modules added to the station.
The various free-flying missions suggested (mainly ones where attachment to the station would tend to defeat the purpose) would seem most likely to be launched as separate satellites, which would rarely if ever need any kind of servicing. They'd just operate as designed until they reached the end of their service life, the way most posters here assume all satellites would.
I have to say that even though I have yet to imagine a mission that would actually justify developing it, I like my Repair Truck concept!
In addition to mating to a suitably designed Block IV Apollo, there might be an alternative auxiliary control pod that goes up as part of an AARDV launch, that plugs in to the Truck to control it in the vicinity of the space station, again allowing spacewalk capabilities (and perhaps giving the repair crewmember superhuman abilities--mainly strength) without anyone actually getting into a space suit.The point here is, if repair work in orbit turns out to be a sensible way to operate, we might want to avoid the need for actual spacewalks on one hand--and on the other, we might not want to throw away the machinery I''ve imagined with a disposable MM. I'm suggesting it's a piece of equipment that is kept handy on orbit for years and many uses.
---
*I'm using "astronaut" in the loose sense of "any human being launched into space by NASA or under NASA auspices," not in the proper sense of the pilot corps that I gather it is restricted to ITTL. I like it because it is gender-neutral, as opposed to "crew man," and less awkward than the phrases "crew member(s)" or "mission specialist(s)"
Shevek,
We actually studied something like that (a separately launched servicing platform tugged around by an Apollo that launches to meet it) for Hubble and others ITTL. I did a couple iterations of a design for what we were calling a TSP (Telescope Servicing Platform), which you can actually see berthed on some of the early Freedom designs I've posted elsewhere. Basically a pressurized cabin with an airlock and a robotics comand station, with a "snout" for berthing replacement instruments and such. Economics, sadly, doomed it.
Your "homunculus" (more of a telerobotic Robonaut) is interesting, but I'm not sure it's practical even with current technology--from what I know the force feedback systems and VR isn't there yet for the kind of control. On the other hand, with zero-prebreath suits, that's less of a problem--something that they've worked on more IOTL and ITTL.
We actually studied something like that (a separately launched servicing platform tugged around by an Apollo that launches to meet it) for Hubble and others ITTL. I did a couple iterations of a design for what we were calling a TSP (Telescope Servicing Platform), which you can actually see berthed on some of the early Freedom designs I've posted elsewhere. Basically a pressurized cabin with an airlock and a robotics comand station, with a "snout" for berthing replacement instruments and such. Economics, sadly, doomed it.
Your "homunculus" (more of a telerobotic Robonaut) is interesting, but I'm not sure it's practical even with current technology--from what I know the force feedback systems and VR isn't there yet for the kind of control. On the other hand, with zero-prebreath suits, that's less of a problem--something that they've worked on more IOTL and ITTL.
Last edited:
Looking at moon base proposals and napkin-waffe, has anyone at NASA or the contractors come up with the idea of inflatable habitats yet? For Freedom or for use on the Moon?
I was particularly thinking of the Moon since you could inflate a hab module inside a lava tube. Giving much of the benefit of using a lava tube regarding shelter with (maybe) a lot less work in making the lava tube airtight and habitable.
I was particularly thinking of the Moon since you could inflate a hab module inside a lava tube. Giving much of the benefit of using a lava tube regarding shelter with (maybe) a lot less work in making the lava tube airtight and habitable.
Wow, I'm happy my thinking is for once on a vaguely similar wavelength with yours!
Of course for me the Robonaut was kind of the keystone of the whole thing. I realize we probably can't match human dexterity 1:1 but then again some of my more recent reading makes me wonder how much dexterity and sensitivity is possible in a practical spacesuit either. The idea was to eliminate EVA for these missions completely, or anyway make it a desperate last resort.
And the "homunculus" I was imagining would not look nearly as spiffy as the Robonaut in the picture! I was thinking all its actuator guts would be exposed, so it would be an exoskeletal nightmare, more of an insect type thing--say with extra arms so the repair tech could switch to more dexterity, using the small scale arms and magnified vision, or to superhumanly strong big arms. The head would just be a bunch of cameras and lights, no nifty motorcycle visor. Its torso would be open storage racks...
I suppose all the smooth outer protection stuff on the Robonaut is not just for looks, but protects all those delicate innards from dust and trace atmosphere and glare and so on.
I have to agree that the economics is all against it. Also, if a teleoperated Robonaut is not practical and spacewalking (or hauling the whole satellite into a workshop) is the way to go, then there's really little need for a specialized craft; the standard issue MM, assuming it allows for a reasonably efficient airlock (an inflatable one perhaps?) should get the job done. Assuming it ever needs to be done. I'd think we'd actually get more specialized tinkering around with the SM, since many satellite repair jobs would involve going into more challenging orbits.
-----
I was wondering about the remark that a Multibody would need to be launched from Vandenberg to reach a polar orbit; I know we've been over this before and the relatively few couple hundred meters/sec does make a remarkably large difference--but I suppose that the real reason a polar launch is impractical from Canaveral is the ground track--it would take the rocket over densely inhabited land, whereas Vandenberg's launch track is over empty ocean to the south.
No chance that at some point the US government will look into developing an all-azimuth launch site at say, the eastern tip of Puerto Rico for instance?
(Nope, the US and British Virgin Islands are in the way for a straight eastward launch.)
Meanwhile I believe Kourou already has both equatorial and polar (and all azimuths between) paths available, launching either north or east. Yes, I see Kourou does launch polar-orbit as well as equatorial and in between spacecraft.
OK, so I see why the launches have to be split between Canaveral and Vandenberg, and since it is hard to imagine why NASA would particularly want a polar launch capability, it is no sacrifice that Multibody launches from Vandenberg are not man-rated.
Unless of course the USAF or broader DoD wants some kind of "Blue Apollo" capability ITTL for strictly military purposes. Again I'm coming up empty on just what missions the Air Force would want to send up manned into a polar orbit. (One OTL proposed Shuttle mission I know of amounted IMHO to astronautical piracy, and would not be within Apollo's capability, since it involved snatching foreign satellites and bringing them down to Earth--this, so I've read, is a major reason the Air Force want the Orbiter to have the stringent cross-range capabilities they insisted on).
Perhaps y'all will think of something the Air Force might seriously want to do, be capable of doing with a manned Apollo, and require a polar launch for. Even without the polar launch restriction I've got nothing myself.
Of course for me the Robonaut was kind of the keystone of the whole thing. I realize we probably can't match human dexterity 1:1 but then again some of my more recent reading makes me wonder how much dexterity and sensitivity is possible in a practical spacesuit either. The idea was to eliminate EVA for these missions completely, or anyway make it a desperate last resort.
And the "homunculus" I was imagining would not look nearly as spiffy as the Robonaut in the picture!
I was thinking all its actuator guts would be exposed, so it would be an exoskeletal nightmare, more of an insect type thing--say with extra arms so the repair tech could switch to more dexterity, using the small scale arms and magnified vision, or to superhumanly strong big arms. The head would just be a bunch of cameras and lights, no nifty motorcycle visor. Its torso would be open storage racks...I suppose all the smooth outer protection stuff on the Robonaut is not just for looks, but protects all those delicate innards from dust and trace atmosphere and glare and so on.
I have to agree that the economics is all against it. Also, if a teleoperated Robonaut is not practical and spacewalking (or hauling the whole satellite into a workshop) is the way to go, then there's really little need for a specialized craft; the standard issue MM, assuming it allows for a reasonably efficient airlock (an inflatable one perhaps?) should get the job done. Assuming it ever needs to be done. I'd think we'd actually get more specialized tinkering around with the SM, since many satellite repair jobs would involve going into more challenging orbits.
-----
I was wondering about the remark that a Multibody would need to be launched from Vandenberg to reach a polar orbit; I know we've been over this before and the relatively few couple hundred meters/sec does make a remarkably large difference--but I suppose that the real reason a polar launch is impractical from Canaveral is the ground track--it would take the rocket over densely inhabited land, whereas Vandenberg's launch track is over empty ocean to the south.
No chance that at some point the US government will look into developing an all-azimuth launch site at say, the eastern tip of Puerto Rico for instance?
(Nope, the US and British Virgin Islands are in the way for a straight eastward launch.
)Meanwhile I believe Kourou already has both equatorial and polar (and all azimuths between) paths available, launching either north or east. Yes, I see Kourou does launch polar-orbit as well as equatorial and in between spacecraft.
OK, so I see why the launches have to be split between Canaveral and Vandenberg, and since it is hard to imagine why NASA would particularly want a polar launch capability, it is no sacrifice that Multibody launches from Vandenberg are not man-rated.
Unless of course the USAF or broader DoD wants some kind of "Blue Apollo" capability ITTL for strictly military purposes. Again I'm coming up empty on just what missions the Air Force would want to send up manned into a polar orbit. (One OTL proposed Shuttle mission I know of amounted IMHO to astronautical piracy, and would not be within Apollo's capability, since it involved snatching foreign satellites and bringing them down to Earth--this, so I've read, is a major reason the Air Force want the Orbiter to have the stringent cross-range capabilities they insisted on).
Perhaps y'all will think of something the Air Force might seriously want to do, be capable of doing with a manned Apollo, and require a polar launch for. Even without the polar launch restriction I've got nothing myself.
Hello Shevek,
Yes, that's exacly what I had in mind - you wouldn't need a Mission Module per se if you were only flying 2 or 3 astronauts up for the mission - life support could be moved back into the Apollo CM, and you could replace the MM with a module designed for repair purposes.
But, as we say, it is hard to think of any satellite that would require such a mission. Not unless DoD were to embark on an ambitious, long-term nuclear FOBS platform (assuming the treaties were trashed), and would require periodic servicing on the missiles...
Yes, that's exacly what I had in mind - you wouldn't need a Mission Module per se if you were only flying 2 or 3 astronauts up for the mission - life support could be moved back into the Apollo CM, and you could replace the MM with a module designed for repair purposes.
But, as we say, it is hard to think of any satellite that would require such a mission. Not unless DoD were to embark on an ambitious, long-term nuclear FOBS platform (assuming the treaties were trashed), and would require periodic servicing on the missiles...
I have to say that it's been oh so worth the wait to see where the world goes in Part III, though nixon's fantabulous renderings helped me get through the lean months.
Random question: How is storage/space use divvied up in the Block IV MMs? Would the OTL Shenzhou MMs be an apt comparison?
Random question: How is storage/space use divvied up in the Block IV MMs? Would the OTL Shenzhou MMs be an apt comparison?
So, the issue of the clearance for Apollos to dock to the side ports on Node 2 of Freedom has been raised more than once. In the process of reviewing the design for Nixonshead's models, I prepared some fresh dimensions, and cross-referencing some of them revealed I'd missed an option that would have rendered that positioning unnecessary. As can be seen below, there was actually clearance to move Kibo and the CGL to the side ports, and thus allow Apollo the nadir and zenith ports, with much easier access for docking. To get to this positioning, the labs would initially dock at nadir, then once their delivery AARDV bus was detached and had deorbited, they'd be transferred to their final port with one of the station's main arms.
I apologize for missing the potential in the past, and I'd like to thank everyone for raising the issue anew and Nixonshead for his help running down this new option and re-preparing images of the completed station. So consider this a bit of an early gift for the week. Hope everyone's looking forward to Friday, this week's post was a fun one to work on.
I apologize for missing the potential in the past, and I'd like to thank everyone for raising the issue anew and Nixonshead for his help running down this new option and re-preparing images of the completed station. So consider this a bit of an early gift for the week.
Hope everyone's looking forward to Friday, this week's post was a fun one to work on.
Now that is a much cleaner look for Freedom. And not just in terms of appearance, but in function as well.
And I count 5 Docking Ports for visiting Spacecraft. 2 for the Block IV Apollo - to ensure a crew of 10 can get out in a hurry should that ever need to occur - 2 for visiting resupply craft, and 1 for an arriving Apollo for crew rotation. So the way I see it, between 2 and 5 of the docking ports will be in use at all times over the life of the Station.
Speaking of, what is the projected lifetime of Freedom? I'd be willing to wager between 12-15 years from the time it achieved Full Operational Capability.
And I count 5 Docking Ports for visiting Spacecraft. 2 for the Block IV Apollo - to ensure a crew of 10 can get out in a hurry should that ever need to occur - 2 for visiting resupply craft, and 1 for an arriving Apollo for crew rotation. So the way I see it, between 2 and 5 of the docking ports will be in use at all times over the life of the Station.
Speaking of, what is the projected lifetime of Freedom? I'd be willing to wager between 12-15 years from the time it achieved Full Operational Capability.