“This spacestation will be a good place for the astronauts to change to specialist spaceships like lunar landers and Mars transfer vehicles.”

Why any more of a good place for that than LEO? …

There is a delta-v of 3.77 km/s between LEO and EML-1. This is about the same as EML-2 to low Mars Orbit. Consequently there is a large propellant saving if the Mars Transfer Vehicle returns to EML-1/2 rather than to LEO.

The fuel requirement is so high that any vehicle trying to return to LEO will be discarded after a single journey. A Moon or Mars vehicle returning to EML-1 can be refurnished at the spacestation and reused. This is likely to save money after the third or fourth trip.

“However the SLS with an upper stage can get Orion to a proposed spacestation at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1.”

Perhaps, but so could Orion/Delta IV plus orbital refueling…a refueling capacity that would serve other kinds of operations.

They are two rival architectures both of which can get you to EML-1/2. The strategic decision about which one to build is a bit off topic for this thread. Personally I am fan of propellant depots.

When planning a practical BLEO space flight you use what ever infrastructure has been constructed.

Well, it would be amusing if it happened. As for me, I advocate nothing, as the whole SLS/Orion business is still way off in fantasyland.

Let’s see what NASA comes in with in a few months. If they have a non-SRB SLS design that looks fastercheaperbetter than one that needs ATK’s products, then we might see fracture lines develop in the pork coalition. Or not — NASA may accept that the laws of nature require SRBs, for values of “nature” in the vicinity of “Congress.”

Closer even than Dragon? As an aside, it’s closer to beyond LEO, not closer to BEO. For that you’d need something like Nautilus.

My main worry about Orion is that using it as a “backup” to commercial space really means using LEO and ISS crew rotation as a backup to missions beyond LEO. I suspect most of its proponents actually consider that more likely than the official scenario. Similarly, talk of Orion “preserving the option to go beyond LEO” really means preserving the option to save the Shuttle political industrial complex thorugh missions beyond LEO.

I’d rather see money spent on a reusable in-space spacecraft, on a Nautilus precursor. I’d want to see something really, really incremental so that we could see results soon with the direction chosen to minimise time to commercial propellant flights. They could start with a storable propulsion module based on the Orion SM + avionics. That could even absorb a sizeable chunk of the Orion workforce and allow for involvement of MSFC propulsion people if that’s desired. Neither of that would be necessary of course, but it wouldn’t be harmful either. We could have substantial numbers of commercial propellant flights within three to five years. Much more useful than a redundant and oversized capsule with a bloated workforce.

“Only reason why I support Orion is because it is closer to BEO than anything else. ”

There is no BEO Orion being developed at this time whatsoever.

“For CST you could very well be starting from scratch.”

Absolutely untrue.

“You would need a new heat shield, stronger structure, and a totally different service module(which could cause you to need a totally different launch escape system). Those changes would be pretty extreme.”

The heatshield would be new as far as TPS goes. If the TPS is not part of the “supporting” structure but only “supported” by the structure as it would seem reasonable then the issue is mass and CG. The SM does not require a redesign of CST. It would require though proper ascent aero and structural analysis. You do not pull or push the SM in case of an abort therefore the mods to the escape system are small. The changes will NOT be pretty “extreme”.

“As it stands now cst100 is built to hold 7 people for 2 days rather than 4 people for 21 days. That makes a huge difference in terms of type of life support system needed.CST100 probably uses lithium cartages. I know Orion has a regenerative CO2 removal system.”

Now where is the number 4 coming from for a BEO mission? But I agree with the different, possibly, ECLSS and consumables.

“CST100 uses batteries. To macth Orion you would need bigger batteries and solar panels not to mention consumables for the crew. Orion for instance has a water tank in the service module.”

This is all related to the SM again not the CST vehicle. Orion does NOT have solar panels the SM does. Same for CST if needed.

” Even the electronics would have to be upgraded to be more radiation resistant. Plus adding radation shielding. Once you add all that stuff you now have a heavier capsule which will effect the EDL systems.i.e. May need bigger/different parachutes. Airbag landing system might need upgrades.”

Well this is all about mass. If you reduce the crew size you may be able to mitigate those issues.

“It might cost less than Orion but is won’t be cheap and it would take more time to do it than just finishing Orion.”

It will cost MUCH less than Orion. Orion will NEVER be finished. Orion does NOT have requirements for anything at this time. Orion’s mission may change again in 2 months or 2 weeks. Orion will NEVER be “cheap”.

Perhaps, but so could Orion/Delta IV plus orbital refueling…a refueling capacity that would serve other kinds of operations.

“This spacestation will be a good place for the astronauts to change to specialist spaceships like lunar landers and Mars transfer vehicles.”

Why any more of a good place for that than LEO? And if EML-1 has special value (and I realize many believe it does) again, why go directly there from the surface in one costly, heavy launch?

I’m reminded of the Agena-assisted Gemini missions that went to higher orbits (and back to low orbit) than a Gemini/Titan II alone could, setting altitude records that weren’t surpassed until Apollo-8.They didn’t develop a whole new launcher to do that, either…

Of course, that was less ‘refueling,’ than it was a crude ‘space tug.’ But if the transfer stage itself is reusable/refuelable for other operations, that’s a valid way to go, as well. And still cheaper and more flexible than developing a limited-use, larger launcher.

Are you saying it’s time for them to vote ATK off the island?

You would need a new heat shield, stronger structure, and a totally different service module(which could cause you to need a totally different launch escape system). Those changes would be pretty extreme.

As it stands now cst100 is built to hold 7 people for 2 days rather than 4 people for 21 days. That makes a huge difference in terms of type of life support system needed.CST100 probably uses lithium cartages. I know Orion has a regenerative CO2 removal system.

CST100 uses batteries. To macth Orion you would need bigger batteries and solar panels not to mention consumables for the crew. Orion for instance has a water tank in the service module. Even the electronics would have to be upgraded to be more radiation resistant. Plus adding radation shielding. Once you add all that stuff you now have a heavier capsule which will effect the EDL systems.i.e. May need bigger/different parachutes. Airbag landing system might need upgrades.

It might cost less than Orion but is won’t be cheap and it would take more time to do it than just finishing Orion.

“Once built, wouldn’t it be much easier to develop a beyond LEO version compared to starting from scratch?”

Of course. Especially if the LEO design is for a 7 crew vehicle. Assume you want to make it a lunar return vehicle you’d have to put consumables onboard. You’d have to have a SM as well and one can imagine a “large” SM which would have all needed. I assume you could even dock on orbit a very large “SM” separately launched. You would then turn the SM as the habitation module en route to the Moon and only use the CST for reentry. I am sure there are many different ways to do this. The real question is “why”? Rather than “how”. If there is reason enough there will be a budget and therefore there will be means. Do you have to travel inside CST for BEO? Why would you? However I even suspect that for a round-the-Moon trip a beefed up CST would just do. I believe Boeing had the contract to develop the TPS for Orion.

In any case, much easier than from scratch. Once you’ve addressed consumables, ECLSS, CG, radiation and MMODS. It’s a capsule, a blob.

“First: …the “bloody shirt” of the astronaut lives lost on the shuttle are brought out and blamed on the incompetence of NASA personnel…”

Actually what people are doing is refuting the idea that NASA is perfect, which is part of the argument for why commercial companies can never succeed.

“Second: …most experts on the subject of what to do on the moon, and other targets of exploration beyond LEO, agree a heavy lifting capability is necessary to do the most exploration, most efficiently.”

Maybe, but we don’t have a funded mission to the Moon, or anywhere out of LEO, so spending money before you have defined the mission is pretty stupid. What if it turns out that the “experts” are wrong? Then you have wasted $Billions that could have been used for real exploration. Define the mission, fund it, then build what you need.

“Third: For the administration to deliberately ignore that authorization when putting together the FY2012 budget…”

Let’s throw rocks in the right direction. Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act, but has yet to fund it.

Instead of waiting, the Administration provided Congress with what they wanted NASA to do in 2012 & beyond – WHICH IS WHAT EVERY ADMINISTRATION DOES, THEY PROPOSE. To think this administration is different than any other in that regard, is being ignorant of the process.

“Fourth: Development of Orion/MPCV as a cis-lunar exploration vehicle … that demand for manned transportation to LEO will be able to support more than one carrier.”

For the cost of using the MPCV as an LEO taxi, NASA could pay for three or more commercial crew providers. That is the real issue, the cost trade-off. Remember that the GAO has said that the MPCV alone will take $20-29B to finish, and it would likely take less than $3B to get two commercial providers going. The operative phrase here is “penny wise, but pound foolish”.

“Fifth: …true lack of vision and direction in human space flight …the vision of a stepping stone, measured progression of increasing capabilities as outlined in the VSE…”

We have a stepping stone, measured progression of increasing capabilities, that do support the VSE, but what is truly lacking is FUNDING to do anything more than what the current NASA plan is. And even that is doubtful, what with the possibility of funding cuts from Congress, and the $Billions that the SLS/MPCV will suck up for NO FUNDED MISSION.

If you want NASA to get more hardware out into space, then you have to focus the budget on things that will get into space quickly. Even if the SLS/MPCV get built some time this decade (are you willing to wager money on that?), Congress has allocated ZERO DOLLARS TO USE THEM. That is why the VSE is not moving forward fast enough, because of a lack of funds, and the misdirection of available funds.

Recognize the theme? Lack of money. Reduce the cost to access space or get more funding from Congress (or both), and you can leave LEO again. Otherwise, get used to disappointment.