Staying informed about news in general has been quite
the task lately, and human spaceflight news is no different. Over the past few
months two large and important stories jumped out of NASA circles. First, as
mentioned in a previous blog post, the Trump administration asked NASA to
evaluate placing a crew on the first flight of the Space Launch System (SLS).
Earlier this month, that plan was formally ruled out by NASA officials. Second,
a relatively detailed definition for a lunar orbiting space station came out of
NASA. Although the lunar space station story is from March, it has taken me
this long to get a grip on my feelings and thoughts—albeit a loose one. Before
I rush to my opinions, let’s cover some background information for both stories.
Before the Trump administration requested NASA to
study placing a crew on the first flight of the SLS, the schedule called for
Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) to fly the Orion spacecraft around the Moon
without a crew. A second Exploration Mission (EM-2) would fly astronauts around
the Moon around 2021 (hopefully). This strategy of an uncrewed EM-1 mission
followed by a crewed EM-2 mission still won the approval of NASA managers, thus
rejecting the idea proposed by the administration. A crewed EM-1 mission would
have increased costs, delayed the launch date, and would have been much
riskier. These factors ultimately led NASA to stick with the current crew and
mission arrangement.
 |
| Artist Concept of SLS Block 1A During Launch (Credit: NASA) |
While NASA was tinkering with the idea of adding a
crew to the EM-1 mission, details emerged on the agency’s planned lunar orbit
(cis-lunar orbit) space station. Construction will begin in the early 2020s
with a launch of the SLS carrying the new station’s
Power and Propulsion Bus (PPB). Other modules, structures concerned with habitation,
will be added to the PPB in later missions. A Russian airlock module will also
be added for easier station based spacewalking. Maximizing consumable usage and
minimizing waste will be critical design goals for the station, which will
prove to be no easy task. Each crewed shift on the lunar outpost will feature a
dedicated supply vehicle—NASA still must determine whether the supply ship will
be provided by a public or private organization. Although, I would place my
bets on a private company providing the supply vehicle.
Overall, the lunar station will provide a platform for
dress rehearsal Mars missions and a hub for returning robotic and crewed
spacecraft from lunar surface operations. Design flexibilities will also allow
Russian and possibly Chinese spacecraft to use the station.
 |
| NASA Lunar Space Station Concept (Credit: Popular Mechanics) |
Now my opinions.
Leaving the EM-1 mission uncrewed appears to be the
best option. Placing a crew on this mission would suffer from serious drawbacks
(increased cost, delayed launch, and higher risk). Even with an uptick in funding, the increased risk associated with
adding a crew serves no valid purpose without a clear goal in mind. Apollo 8’s
trip around the Moon was risky as well, but the risk was taken to increase the
likelihood of meeting President Kennedy’s goal. Developing complex hardware
like the Orion spacecraft and SLS should be taken in a step-by-step fashion to
decrease risk and increase the chances of success towards the end goal. This
process can be hastened with adequate funding and human resources, but that is
not the case with the American space program right now.
Mixed emotions do not begin to describe my feelings
towards the lunar space station concept. Frankly, I am an advocate of virtually
any human space exploration that extends beyond low Earth orbit. However, I
feel using the lunar station as a means for Mars mission testing or getting to
the Red Planet expends more resources and time than a direct path. I would
advocate for a path similar to the one outlined in Robert Zubrin’s A Case for
Mars. Building and testing habitation, propulsion, and Mars landing hardware in
the lunar environment before traveling to Mars could be more efficient. For example, NASA could build and test the
Mars mission hardware by long duration Moon landing missions. Eventually, this
could lead to an Apollo 10 style dress rehearsal for a Mars landing once NASA
officials felt necessary objectives were met.
Another issue I have with the proposed lunar station revolves
around Russian involvement. It is no secret tensions between the United States
and Russia have been high for many years now, and this tension could derail
future joint endeavors. U.S. and Russian officials continue to cooperate on the
International Space Station because the project is already completed. I would
advise NASA to work with the Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese on future
projects to avoid potential issues with Russia stemming from international
politics.
I would love to hear your thoughts on either issue!! And,
as always, check out The Space Endeavor’s Facebook page for more space related
content!
Sources used:
No comments:
Post a Comment