Wow ! "Space Station L-1" ! What do you think of this?

[carp]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/521/1

 

[holmec]

I like it. Its cool. I think that maybe an observatory at L1 would be good. May even get more detail than in earth low earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[ehs40]

i feel that we should have some kind of stable moon operations before we build another space station considering all the problems we have with the iss but this station would most likely be an iss-2 and hopefully our international partners will develop a launch system capeable of carrying up station componets in case for whatever reason nasa can't do it. but once we have stable moon operations and flights to the moon it will be much easier to build another space station

 

[josh_simonson]

It'd be nice to get large manned facilities out of LEO because potentially revolutionary concepts such as LEO MXER tethers are complecated because the ISS shares their airspace. <br /><br />Being in LEO, protected from cosmic rays and solar flares is also spaceflight with training wheels. We have to research that at somepoint, and I don't believe it's acceptable to send people on long duration missions without quick return capability until these things have been addressed.

 

[nacnud]

Na I don't like the idea of an ISS II, if you are to have an EML 1 station have it as a way station between the Earth and moon, perhaps a tank farm and crew exchange between the CEV and LSAM for follow on crews to a Luna base. Possibly a base for servicing SEL 1 or ELM 2 observatories, but not a science station, crew less craft would be better for observation and the ISS is better positioned for microgravity research.

 

[ldyaidan]

I definitely agree. Seems much more reasonable to establish a lunar base first, then a 2nd space station. Once we have a lunar base, and can start mining and manufacturing on the moon, then we can save tons of money in building a station. Breaking free from lunar gravity is much easier, and cheaper, than having to launch from earth. In addition, ISRU from lunar materials, such as the proposed solar cell manufacturing, helium 3, and so on can provide materials needed for this production, while encouraging further settlement due to job opportunities.<br /><br />Rae

 

[quasar2]

all these finally make sense. no way we need an ISS2. no way to build in L1 w/o Moon support. & actually Mars will be easier w/ any kinda L1 structure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

i`ve never gone along w/ the idea that every Manned Mars scenario absolutely hasta be directly from Earth. this would change that stagnating mindset forever. another slowing us down is every idea (atleast) the ones i`ve seen for rotating habitats calls for 1g. too many mindsets have slowed us down in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[smradoch]

Moon/Earth L1 station is not bad idea only when utilizing LOX from Moon for trips to Mars. In all other cases it is useless.

 

[quasar2]

i didn`t give much thought about L1 until i joined here. i was more interested in the L5. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

for those who know this answer: how much fuel does an artifact need to expend for station-keeping in vicinity of L1? now, obviously this question has variables, so let`s keep to the general theme. on here i`ve learned that L1 isn`t exactly as stable as L5. so obviously structures will never be built there as large as Oneill`s(sp). so if a manned artifact would be located there, how large? in my opinion, the way we`re moving in Space development, Oneill colonies will never be. but it`d still be interesting to learn exactly how much deltav from each of usable points in the whole scenario. i hope most people can understand this as i think it would help. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

>First we need to get our mindlocks off of Mars. That planet isn't going anywhere and we have no real need to waste time and billions going there now. We can no longer afford NASAs Bread and Circuses approach to space travel. We need to stop explorations and do some practical work (boring stuff that doesn't make good newprint) before moving on to Mars or anywhere else. Our next step is to make a place where humans will LIVE. Our next step is to leave this planet forever and begin colonization of the moon.<<br /><br />Very good point. Though I do have to say exploration is where NASA thrives. To do any "real" (mining, living, etc) work in space, the way to do it is through the commercial side. So exploration should be continued, but incentives for commercial pratical work should be sought after.<br /><br />No time like the present to start something. But a mining operation could take years in planning and implemenatation. Love to see it happen though, it could push the commercial side way beyond what NASA can do. <br /><br />L1 and L5 seem like good candidates for a permanent space station. Could put a processing plant there for raw materials. Could have robotic ships hall in the raw materials and robotic miners mine the stuff. Most of the technology seems to be there. Rover technology could be adapted to make robotic miners, and we could have several robotic ships with ion drives transport the stuff (form asteroids) and chemical thruster ships (for stuff coming from the moon). All you have to do is keep a steady stream of transporter ships going and the processing plant will have enouch stuff to process. The real problem would be what are you mining and how to use it. The first answer to that would probably be rocket fuel. And the plant could be selling the fuel to NASA and the other space agencies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

& we certailnly can`t get away from the fact that an orbit is easier than a plantary surface. the whole idea is that we need to start looking @ killing 2 birds w/ 1 stone. every move we make in OuterSpace should be geared this way otherwise it`s only sensationalism. there was excellent thread in the past " Standards for Space", which was probably one of the most important threads ever on here. This dangerous & unproductiveness is slowing us down to the point where everyone blames everyone else. & it simply boils down to the fact that everyone thinks we will eventually build there. in the past everyone assumed we`d return to the Moon. @least for awhile they did, then apathy set in, & we had to start looking around & Mars came along. Mars would`ve been a natural evolution of an earlier MoonReturn. there would`ve been many reasons for this. partly, an easier gravity well. this miasma will never go away until drastic measures are taken, like oneway misions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

"Moon/Earth L1 station is not bad idea only when utilizing LOX from Moon for trips to Mars. In all other cases it is useless."<br /><br />Entirely incorrect, smradoch. It is THE location to be to stage moon colonization as well as exploration of the rest of the solar system, exploitation of asteroid and comet mining, etc. L1 is where the first tether will really be built, to the moons surface, and can be done with current day technology, we dont' need to wait for nanotubes. As the location of the first tether, it will be the point at which not only LOX, but refined silica and/or solar cells will route to from the moons surface, to be built into solar power stations, and iron, aluminum, and titanium for metal space structures.<br /><br />The counterbalance of that tether will catch payloads coming from earth on highly eccentric transfer orbits using GEO delta-v, rather than translunar delta-v, so it will reduce the cost of getting to the moon.

 

[najab]

><i>...using GEO delta-v, rather than translunar delta-v...</i><p>There really ain't that much difference between the two, sad to say - only around 10%.</p>

 

[mlorrey]

10% is huge, allows you to use smaller boosters, smaller upper stages, or put more payload up with the larger boosters. Every little bit helps.<br /><br />Cheap access to space isn't going to come from one massive price reduction, it is going to come from a lot of nickel and diming all over the place, as Max Hunter has said.

 

[najab]

><i>Every little bit helps.</i><p>True that. My only concern - and it really is a concern, not a knee-jerk criticism - is this: is the additional complexity (rendezvous, capture, boost) worth the 10%?</p>

 

[mlorrey]

With the proper trajectory, the payload will arrive at the L1 tether counterweight with close to zero velocity relative to the counterweight, so it is pretty simple there. I don't see where you need additional boosting: it would ride the tether to L1, and if possible, refueled at L1 with LunOX to proceed to other destinations in the solar system, or down to the moons surface if it is destined for that location. You won't need to carry extra fuel to land on the moon, or to get back off again. This tether, built from kevlar and other normal materials, will prove tether economics and make the case for the larger investment in a GEO nanotube tether. <br /><br />It is, of course, all about sortie rates. If the governments of the planet keep going as they are, no tether will ever get built, because they do not invest in 'field of dreams' type projects anymore. However with private space exploitation, sortie rates should rise significantly between 2010 and 2020.

 

[quasar2]

it`s far safer & cheaper than Earth Space elevator, which i think will never happen. i wonder exactly how large of an area this encompasses? hehe, maybe we better start if there`ll be room for everything. i`m truly excited. even more so than MoonReturn. because this will happen sooner. perhaps in some of us on here slightly older folks lives. yet another reason to not worry over Mars. & i still we don`t need 1g manned centrifuges. 1/6 & 1/3 will do nicely. & easier to maintain, to maintain. not as much toroidal stress to deal with. & yet another place returning Marscrew could return to, besides Luna &/or L5. & L1 could be staging point for Cruithne. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

what excites me is that a staion there would be visible in lunar transit. many of us have wondered what it`d be like to see some <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

thing on the moon. this would be easier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[smradoch]

Well, there were some doubts about my previous post:<br /><br />"Moon/Earth L1 station is not bad idea only when utilizing LOX from Moon for trips to Mars. In all other cases it is useless."<br /><br />But I think it's 100% true. For several next decades there won't be any use for EML 1. For flights between Earth and Moon it's useless and heavy trafic to other celestial bodies won't happen anytime soon.<br /><br />But I'm sure in the next century people can find some use for spaceport at L1.

 

[quasar2]

since you put it that you`re entirely correct. it sure is depressing. that view is one of the reasons i dropped out of the Mars crowd. just think how much longer it will take to build infrastructure from Mars. if i`m reading the aims correctly. the realism of infrastructure, that should be the focus. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>