There should be a space record set on the 9th of next month. That is, the most people in space at one time. However, it’ll only last for a very short time and they won’t all be in orbit.
The current record is 14, set during the Shuttle days and tied earlier this year. (I believe I posted about it in this thread, but am too lazy to hunt that post down.) Currently, there are 7 crew on ISS and 3 on the Chinese station. AFAICT, none of them are scheduled to return in the next couple weeks. On Dec 9th, Blue Origin will make another launch of New Shepard, this time with 6 people on it, bringing the total in space at one time to 16. Of course New Shepard is above the Karman Line for only about a minute, so this a very fleeting record.
There will be four paying passengers and two guests on the coming launch. One of the guests is Alan Shepard’s daughter and the other is some TV host, but since I don’t watch TV anymore (and never watched Good Morning, America), his name means nothing to me.
Didn’t Alan Shephard testify to congress once that women should not be astronauts? If so (my GoogleFu is letting me down), good on her for sticking one to her dad.
It seems as though this would be a useful technology to divert asteroids. Put one of these on the asteroid (or several), and just fling gravel and rock off at high speeds in the appropriate direction to impart the momentum you want.
Not sure exactly how viable that would be, but it seems more viable than trying to use chemical rockets or a nuclear bomb.
Ha ! That’s what i thought, except i envisaged putting one on the moon and flinging
rocks up into space, then gathering them together and pushing them into the asteroid.
I don’t think so. First, it would be really difficult to mount this on an asteroid - especially the ones that are essentially giant collections of gravel and rocks. Second, you’d have to prevent it from accelerating away from the asteroid when it throws mass. You’d also have to enclose the material in some king of casing. And you’d probably need a nuclear power plant to power it.
Building and installing such a device would also take a long time - time we likely wouldn’t have.
Burying a shaped-charge nuke and directionally blasting thiusands of tons at once in one general direction would seem to me to be much more efficient. And if you are gojng to have a nuclear plant there, you could also just continually vaporize the surface with a big-ass laser, using the vaporized particles as reaction mass.
NASA have detailed their plans to replace the ISS with a commercial space station between 2028 and 2030.
(PDF file)
Given the Station’s inevitable retirement and NASA’s continuing need for low Earth orbit research, the success of the Agency’s Plan for Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development is crucial to avoid a gap in low Earth orbit access. NASA’s plan to close that gap is for one or more commercial low Earth orbit destinations to be operational by 2028, which would allow a two-year overlap with the ISS before its anticipated retirement in 2030.
They haven’t mentioned a launch provider, and it could be replaced by numerous orbital structures. However Blue Origin would certainly be interested I’m sure having already showed off a space station design recently, and SpaceX could easily chuck a couple of Starships up.
I thought I saw a request for proposals (or maybe a request for information) from NASA to private space companies for designs for a new LEO station, though I didn’t think they were talking that time frame. I only saw it in passing and don’t have time to do a search atm.
Are they still planning to Moon orbiting a new station at this point? I know Russia pulled out of that one (and joined the Chinese program to do a similar station IIRC), but I haven’t heard if they still plan to do the new one.
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. I will be surprised if it got cut. Not sure what your issue with it is (you seem to have one), but I think it’s got quite a bit of international support and it really will be a groundbreaking station with a lot of utility if we actually plan to do some serious exploration and use of the Moon. I believe the Chinese and Russians are planning a similar station as China’s next big thing, sometime in the 30’s.
Last I heard, Gateway will not be part of the first Artemis missions, but it still scheduled to be partmof the full Artemis program.
However… The only reason Gateway exists is because SLS doesn’t have the Delta-V to put Orion in a low lunar orbit. It’s a kluge. I’m hoping that after Starship proves itself, the plans for a gateway might be shelved. After all, it costs more total Delta-V to go LEO-Gateway-LLO than to just go directly to LLO. It adds complexity, time, and a lot of money to the Artemis program.
Regarding a new space station, I suppose the Axiom people are the front-runners, but I’m not sire why they don’t just launch a starship outfitted as a station. The thing has about the same interior volume as the ISS.
The posts don’t seem to be numbered that I can tell, though perhaps I’m missing something. So, not sure what you are getting at. I assume this has something to do with Zubrin’s scathing condemnation of the program, though in this case, it’s mainly because he feels it detracts from what he feels is the priority mission, that of sending people to Mars. There are always those who feel we should be spending our space dollars on things they want. A lot of the NASA pushback I’ve seen on this has to do with wanting a manned station on the Moon itself or wanting to spend the money on more robotic missions, or myriad other things. Not sure what you want me to educate you on, you obviously know about the infighting on this. Plus, I figure, there is a lot of pushback because this was a Trump era initiative, and as well all know, as soon as there is another president, the former president’s plans go out the airlock (like Obama’s plan for a manned mission to an asteroid). I figure this is doubly so with Trump.
At any rate, I hear a lot of the same stuff we heard when they were wanting to do the ISS, namely that we didn’t need it, it would have no obvious benefit, etc etc. I think Zubrin was ALSO opposed to that, though maybe I’m misremembering. The short answer is that Zubrin has his own plan…Moon Direct…which is where he feels we should be spending the money. I can see that, but I think a Lunar space station would be a really great step forward for us wrt build capabilities. YMMV of course.
So, I went to post #60, and, indeed, it’s about Zubrin. Figured it was, as he’s one of the most outspoken critics of the new station. I like old Robert, but he’s not exactly an unbiased source on this stuff, and, he’s criticized other missions, including, again from memory, the current ISS, because they detract from what he thinks NASA and the US should be doing.
The Gateway isn’t really in a normal lunar orbit - it’s in a ‘near-rectilinear Halo Orbit’ which takes it near the Moon’s L1 and L2 Lagrange points.
An NHRO is an orbit not strictly around the moon, but a highly elliptical orbit in CisLunar space that drops as close as 3,000 km to the moon, and as far as 70,000km at apogee - slightly more than a sixth of the way to the Earth.
The main reason for selecting such an orbit, other than it’s one that SLS can get the Orion to, is that it is never blanketed by the moon so we maintain 24/7 communications with any ship in it, and there’s also 24/7 sunlight for solar panels. And because it is a polar orbit, you can reach any part of the moon’s surface ftom it by launching at the right time.
We can’t maintain permanent low lunar orbits, because the moon’s mass has a number of concentrations (Mascons) that destabilize orbits. There are a few ‘frozen’ orbits that avoid this, but they may not be useful for other purposes.
But the NHRO has a lot of problems. It’s not very useful for science, it’s outside the Van Allen belts of Earth so it’s bathed in cosmic radiation, meaning short stays only. It’s not very useful as an emergency habitat, as it can actually take twice as long to get to parts of the Halo orbit from the moon as opposed to just going back to Earth.
But most of all, adding a stop at NRHO for a trip to the moon adds delta-v, reduces payload, and adds to mission complexity. And the benefits are low, and IMO don’t come close to justifying the added costs and program risks.
Specifically, the delta-v from LEO to NRHO is 3.95 km/s. It takes another 0.73 km/s to get from NHRO to Low Lunar Orbit. So the total cost for LEO->NRHO-LLO is 4.68 km/s.
Going direct from LEO to LLO requires 4.02 km/s. That is a very substantial difference.
