Orbital ATK Advocates Lunar Orbiting Base
Cislunar station (Credit: Orbital ATK)
Former NASA Astronaut Frank Culbertson Proposes Four-Person Crew-Tended Lunar-Orbit Habitat to Be in Place by 2020
Company’s Flight-Proven Cygnus Spacecraft Could be Used as a Building-Block Habitat Leading to Lunar Research and Mars Exploration
Dulles, Va., 18 March 2016 (Orbital ATK PR) – Orbital ATK, Inc. (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, today advocated for a manned lunar-orbit outpost as America’s next step in human space exploration.
During testimony this afternoon to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space, Frank Culbertson, President of the company’s Space Systems Group, said, “A lunar-orbit habitat will extend America’s leadership in space to the cislunar domain. A robust program to build, launch and operate this initial outpost would be built on NASA’s and our international partners’ experience gained in long-duration human space flight on the International Space Station and would make use of the agency’s new Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion deep-space transportation system.”
Orbital ATK was recently selected by NASA to study an initial version of a cislunar habitat that could evolve over time to a much larger research platform with many of the capabilities required for a human mission to Mars. These studies fall under NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program, a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep-space exploration capabilities to support more extensive human space flight missions in the “proving ground” of cislunar space, the region from Earth orbit that extends beyond the moon.
During his testimony, Mr. Culbertson emphasized that Orbital ATK’s Cygnus spacecraft is a strong candidate to be used as a habitat building block for the cislunar outpost and eventually to help achieve NASA’s goal of human exploration of Mars.
“The experience gained in the cislunar proving ground will lead directly to longer mission durations in deep space and eventually enable a manned mission to Mars,” Culbertson said. “But, in order to increase stay times in cislunar space and accommodate a range of technology demonstrations and scientific experiments, additional habitation space and consumables are necessary. A very good starting point for the design of a cislunar habitat is our flexible, human-rated Cygnus spacecraft which incorporates the knowledge gained from delivering cargo to the ISS.”
The initial habitat concept includes pre-positioning a Cygnus-derived module in lunar orbit using a commercial launch vehicle in 2020, to be ready for a first visit by astronauts on the inaugural crewed flight of NASA’s Orion spacecraft in 2021. Additional habitat and research modules would expand the outpost following delivery by Orion/SLS and other launch systems in the 2022-2025 period.
This concept would serve a dual purpose: to establish the first elements of cislunar infrastructure to enable expanded exploration of the Moon in the 2020s, and to also provide a platform for technology research and demonstration needed to enable human flights to Mars in the 2030s. NASA, the European Space Agency and other international partners also could use the evolving outpost as a staging base and safe haven for lunar landing expeditions and robotic surface operations.
“Since many aspects of operations in deep space are as yet untested, confidence must be developed through repeated flights to, and relatively long-duration missions in, cislunar space,” Culbertson said. “Orbital ATK continues to operate our Cygnus cargo logistics vehicle as a flagship product, so we are ready to quickly and affordably implement an initial Cygnus-derived habitat in cislunar space within three years of a go-ahead.”
Orbital ATK has already expanded the capabilities of Cygnus beyond its core cargo delivery function. The spacecraft is serving as a research platform capable of hosting technology risk-reduction demonstrations to enable deep-space exploration as part of existing cargo delivery missions to the ISS. The first technology demonstration, Spacecraft Fire Experiment-1 (SAFFIRE-1) designed by NASA’s Glenn Research Center, is currently in-orbit aboard the OA-6 Cygnus. Following Cygnus’ departure from the ISS next month, the largest man-made fire ever in space will be ignited in the Cygnus Pressurized Cargo Module, which will enable NASA to investigate fire detection, advanced fire extinguishing methods, and post-fire clean up in a space environment.
About Orbital ATK
Orbital ATK is a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies. The company designs, builds and delivers space, defense and aviation systems for customers around the world, both as a prime contractor and merchant supplier. Its main products include launch vehicles and related propulsion systems; missile products, subsystems and defense electronics; precision weapons, armament systems and ammunition; satellites and associated space components and services; and advanced aerospace structures. Headquartered in Dulles, Virginia, Orbital ATK employs approximately 12,000 people in 18 states across the U.S. and in several international locations. For more information, visit www.orbitalatk.com.
63 responses to “Orbital ATK Advocates Lunar Orbiting Base”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m loving that!
Highly unlikely that this will be funded and even more unlikely that OATK will do it on their own. But if this gets done, it will be a game changer for manned missions beyond LEO.
Clever how they managed to cater tot the SLS/Orion crowd, the Commercial Space supporters, the Moon first and Mars first advocates all at the same time. 😀
But the problem is that this approach is way too expensive.
I am pretty sure that NASA will go the route of transhab/Bigelow. It is just so cheap and safer for the volume.
I don’t see how one thing excludes the other. Just because a Lunar Orbital Station has a modified Cygnus at its core (or as a part of it) doesn’t mean that you can’t hook up a bigelow Module as well.
I’m all for Bigelow’s inflatable modules, but having one! modified Cygnus ready in Lunar orbit for the first crewed Orion flight is in my opinion way more realistic (and cheaper) than Bigelow having his two BA330s ready by 2020 as he claims.
I thought that first crewed Orion was in 2022. No?
Ah. Article says 2021. But, I thought it was delayed until 2022.
And 1 ba330 is 330 m^3, while an enhanced Cygnus is only 27 m^3.
That is not much of a station.
Though interestingly, in terms of volume / mass, they are similar.
The PR states 2021. I’ve been following spaceflight activities long enough to know that such numbers are nothing more than “rough NET estimates” that will always slip to the right.
So 2020 is as good of a reference as 2021 or 2022, imho 🙂
Of course that isn’t much (and is only intended as a starting point), but I’m pretty sure the EM-2 Astronauts will appreciate that little bit of extra space to flex their legs after being crammed into Orion for ~3 days on their way to the moon. 😀
Deleted by me
Highly unlikely they will do this on their own. 🙁
I have long been frustrated by the fact that they use a perfectly good spaceship to dump the trash. Seems they should be using these modules to build this space station now. You would think they would come up with a cheaper trash bag to De-orbit the junk.
Seems Dragon should be using their trunk to dump the trash in BEAM bags so they can assemble this near ISS.
ISS should be used to build stuff!
I pretty much agree but there is only so much you can do with six people. ISS is more of an orbital outpost than a working space station. We’re gonna need a bigger boat, er, space station (and more things for it to do.) 🙂
More things to do?
Like building a Mars Spaceship
Seems SpaceX may be in the Leo Space station business soon.
Likely space station and big Mars ship one and the same.
Multiple MCT systems perhaps
SpaceX may become anchor tenant not NASA
Nasa has to come up with SpaceX customer support or look bad.
We are going to Mars NASA
Fork over some dough if you want a ride
I agree, his mars ship is supposed to support 100 people for 6-8 months. If it just sat in LEO it would be the biggest space station to date.
I keep having this silly idea that this mars ship is boosted by special Falcon Heavy raptor second stages that just dock to the mars ship.
How many engines/cores tanks would you need?
Every falcon reusable Heavy launch adds another engine tank plus fuel.
Easy to replace during LEO visits
Modular engine cluster
I really do not have a firm grasp yet on his architecture, am really excited to see his release of it later this year.
Haha, I’m stupid. I congratulated them on including the SLS/Orion crowd and only now I realize I completely forgot that they themselves are supplying the solid boosters for SLS, so including SLS is just in their own best interest. 😀
*facepalm* I really should get used to the fact that “Orbital ATK” now includes “ATK”, lol.
I’m not opposed but this sounds like another in the long line of “if you build it, they will come proposals.” Would it be too much to read some stories about what (other than tourism) governments and companies will be willing to spend billions, if not trillions, of dollars to produce in space? Give Orbital ATK (or Bigelow) or anyone else a requirement that the majority of their available space must be actually booked by private companies before handing out taxpayer dollars to push the final frontier outward.
Not a bad idea!
Seeing how NASA is paying for the study, OATK is giving them exactly what they paid for. NASA, Boeing, Lockheed and OATK all presented. The coolest part is that ANDY WEIR did too!!! The only company that didn’t present that has a contract for this is Bigelow, but not sure why.
Anyways, NASA wants to know what to do with their money after ISS that will make Orion look useful, so they are getting all kinds of proposals (that they themselves are paying for).
Watch the session here:
https://science.house.gov/l…
I don’t have a problem with the study. My point is that someone needs to tell us what they are going to use it for, how they are going to support it and why we need it before asking the government to fund it. Of course, it would be nice to have but why don’t we actually try having supply meet demand for a change instead of creating a transportation system or habitat and then trying to manufacture demand for it’s use?
I totally get what you’re saying, and sadly the NASA of today is not particularly transparent with their plans, costs or timelines. While a part of the NASA you describe DOES exist (SpaceX, Cygnus, NanoRacks, BEAM, CST-100, etc.), we all know that it’s not the ONLY NASA.
This study has a market of 1: NASA. If NASA wants it, they will buy it. That’s the only business case that matters. (Commercial interests will be there, but as an afterthought.)
On a happier note, Nautilus-X is REAL BABY!
It isn’t just NASA. Take a look around at so-called “private space” and you’ll find plenty of vehicle manufactures and a habitat manufacturer, but damned little else. We need companies to exploit the resources out there and make them economically useful to people on Earth (since we have no space colonies yet and no compelling reason to found one.) That is an example of the “if you build it, they will come mentality” that pervades private space. Lots of energy to get there and no clue at all what they’re going to do when they arrive.
Why would you expect Boeing/Lockheed/OATK to do any differently? (Bigelow is a little bit different).
I work for one of the large defense contractors (none of these though) and I LITERALLY consider it simple extension of the DoD/NASA government apparatus. While we can make suggestions, we do what our government customer tells us to do. If we make a widget that the USG doesn’t want us to make, they don’t buy it and forbid sale around the world. And when a contractor has gotten out of line, they have been publicly punished for it. We aren’t much better than a privatized version of the old government design bureaus.
I don’t expect them to do any differently but unless other companies find a way to make use of the infrastructure that they are building, we’ll soon be back to 2 or 3 rocket manufacturers and some old plans for a habitat while everybody is blasting NASA for not being bold. Unless private space invests its own money in exploiting what lies behind the door that NASA and SpaceX and ULA have opened, things will stay the same with a few companies fighting over government contracts. No real exploration will occur because Congress doesn’t see the political will in the electorate or the desire to act boldly.
While I agree with what you’re saying, the lunar outpost is likely a lost cause in my mind. They are likely to do some version of ISS-lite there, and the access with be so infrequent as to make it difficult-to-impossible to exploit commercially.
I think we should really be changing the serious discussion to what NASA does next in LEO. If NASA is willing to be an anchor tenant for Bigelow’s LEO station, then I submit that the lunar outpost will be significantly less important. If NASA is REALLY smart, they’ll work with Bigelow to make the core of both LEO and lunar outposts are basically copies of each other. Now we’d have a functioning commercial station in LEO with a clear path to get to one in lunar orbit.
So, to sum up what I think is possible:
NASA will be smart if they agree to be an anchor tenant for a Bigelow LEO station
NASA will be SUPER smart if they can get a new LEO station AND lunar outpost while simultaneously establishing a company that is super focused on space habitats.
I think that’s actually possible.
Well, Bigelow is doing a space station first, but it is really doubtful that loads of money will flow to it. Otoh, i believe that once they have it in Leo and then announce that they are going to the moon with a base, numerous gov. Will start a space program based on riding private space.
The moon holds loads of unknown potential just like the earth poles do.
I’d love for the Bigelow station to be as successful as possible. If the first station only manages to scrape by while we learn true capitalism in LEO, so be it. We have to learn the lessons of commercializing LEO before we can move onto the next lessons: first Moon, then Mars. Learning how to successfully commercialize each of these locations could EASILY take a generation each, and that’s after the generation it takes to develop the technologies to easily reach them.
If we as humanity are playing the long game, it matters much more that we learn how to be successful at each step than how fast we can simply reach each step.
You wrote:
“I think we should really be changing the serious discussion to what NASA does next in LEO. If NASA is willing to be an anchor tenant for Bigelow’s LEO station, then I submit that the lunar outpost will be significantly less important. If NASA is REALLY smart, they’ll work with Bigelow to make the core of both LEO and lunar outposts are basically copies of each other. Now we’d have a functioning commercial station in LEO with a clear path to get to one in lunar orbit.”
This is not quite true. Oh very different tasks at the space station on LEO and Lunar orbital station (LOS). Stations of LEO can be engaged in research and production in zero gravity, and in general – in orbit. For example, the last test VASIMR. Therefore, such a station should operate under the auspices of CASIS.
At the same time, the other station may be a LEO transport node in orbit. This is a purely commercial tasks for the delivery of goods from LEO on a variety of orbit and into deep space. The anchor customer for such a station could be NASA and build this station can be in the program, based on principles of COTS.
The lunar orbiting station (LOS) as well, first of all, the transport hub for the delivery of people and cargo on the surface of the Moon and the low lunar orbit (LLO). It can also be created in the program on the principles of COTS.NASA should not be the owner of the station, but can be the anchor customer of their services, together with ESA.
I’m Russian, and I live in Russia, but what is discussed here is important for everyone.
While it would be nice if your goal for the lunar outpost were to happen, I don’t think that is what NASA will actually build. I think in reality you are discussing either the second or third lunar orbiting station. I think this is going to be a lunar Salyut, not a lunar ISS. NASA doesn’t have the money to do what you describe, they aren’t going about it in a COTS fashion and the transportation isn’t there to use it that way. That’s why I’m saying that conversation is already lost. The place where that vision CAN happen is LEO.
I’m an American I live in the southern United States 🙂
I wonder if the discussion of these important issues makes any difference?
I would hope so!
Planetary Resources comes to mind with a second. Are you relay ignorant enough to think there aren’t groups waiting solely for space access prices to fall so their business plans become viable?
Ignorant? Really? Planetary resources has a lot of pretty pictures and proposals but absolutely zilch hardware. Where are they going to do this mining? LEO? Sure. We’re really going to let a private company break big rocks into little rocks in orbit and exacerbate the space junk problem. So if they mine in situ, how are they going to return ore back to Earth in quantities large enough to be useful at a cost less than mining on Earth or recycling? As for all these other “sources,” most of them will dissolve long before access to space becomes affordable. Still, I’d be interested in reading more stories about real companies that don’t make rockets or habitats that plan on exploiting space resources.
That is why private space must go to the moon. Numerous gov will pay to be on the surface exploring and trying to grab a suitable place to put a base as at. And there are limits to the good spots on each pole.
Other than China and India, who has put (or plans on putting) a lander or rover on the moon in the last 40 years?
There might be some scientists who are interested, but there’s clearly no “scientific interest” in the moon from funding bodies. So where’s the market?
UAE, UK, Brazil, are just a few nations that I can think of, that would love to leapfrog. While all 3 are slowly developing launch systems, which of these would love to have a space operation going that helps justify their investment into launchers? All 3. Same with south Korea. I would bet that both Australia and Canada would throw money at getting 1 of theirs on the lunar surface for say 250 million a year.
Australia has a tiny space budget and virtually no support within the government (by either of the major parties). We don’t even develop our own basic earth-science satellites (nor astronomical satellites, in spite of punching-above-our-weight when it comes to Earth-based astronomy.)
Brazil is developing its own launch program. And hence would not spend its precious budget on someone else’s lunar program.
The UK and Canada are part of ESA and wouldn’t run an independent program. ESA’s new boss is raving about a “lunar village”, but that agency hasn’t sent a single lander or rover to the moon ever. They’re hardly falling over themselves to do lunar science, hence there’s no actual demand for manned lunar science, hence any manned program is just space-masturbation.
Paul451 wrote:
“Other than China and India, who has put (or plans on putting) a lander or rover on the moon in the last 40 years?”
“Europe Aiming for International ‘Moon Village'”
http://www.space.com/32695-…
“Wörner said the term “moon village” was chosen advisedly, to help people understand the purpose of such an outpost.
“A village is something where different people are gathering with different capabilities, different opportunities, and then they build a community,” Wörner said. “It’s not one village with some houses, a church.”
The idea, he added, is to bring together a variety of different actors from the public and private sectors.
“But for me, it’s also a stepping-stone, a test bed … to go further, for instance, to Mars and beyond,” Wörner said.”
As I said above:
In its entire existence, ESA hasn’t launched a single moon-related mission. Not even an orbiter. Since all ESA projects are science related (Earth-science, deep astronomy, and increasingly other planets), it shows that ESA has absolutely no scientific interest in the moon.
[Edit: I forgot about SMART-1. So they’ve had one small (<400kg) orbiter in 2003.]
What do you mean Nautilus-X is real? Have I missed something?!
I just meant that all of the ideas being thrown around for Lunar and Martian orbiting outposts are in that vein. Nautilus-X itself isn’t being proposed, but architecturally it is part of each proposal.
And I think that’s a good thing.
Agreed!
For any serious human spaceflight activities in cislunar space and especially for Mars, we need a dedicated, reusable in-space-only transportation. A True “spaceship”.
Capsules with trow away service modules are just too much of a compromise.
It’s pretty cool to think your business card could say “spaceship designer” or “space habitat architect” and you’re actually serious. NASA and each of these companies are in that game now, and to know that those job titles will NEVER go away as long as there are humans, makes it cool to live in the 21st century.
I agree. I do not think that a space station by itself will bring other private or gov involvement.
But, if a base is put on the moon or Mars, then every gov on this planet will demand to go.
Why would every government on this planed “demand” to go?
Just as most governments care very little about human spaceflight today (even in those countries that participate in HSF!), only those who feel the need for a prestige boost will show any real interest.
Besides: I don’t see governments playing a major role in the colonization/exploitation of the solar system. Either a miracle happens and humanity does it united, or it will be private corporations who will be blazing the trail.
Look at what is happening in arctic and Antarctica. Nations are trying to jump in that had not been there before and have nothing bordering. China demands full access to both poles and is now trying to claim sub-ocean flooring even though they can not visit the pole either on top or below.
Same issue will crop up on the moon. Gov will demand of their CONgress to go once prime areas of the moon start getting grabbed.
And no doubt it will be private space leading the charge. ESA and other partners will make heavy use of private space to fill in the gaps that they develop.
And who else other than China is interested (on a government level) in the arctic and in Antarctica? (Not counting countries with older claims to the areas!)
Switzerland? Spain? Brasil? Guatemala? Poland? Vietnam?
(picking totally at random here)
Unless a new resource is found there that solves all our energy needs at ridiculous low costs, “nobody” really cares.
Yes, science will always want to go there with scientists coming from any country, but I’m pretty confident that ~90% of Earth’s countries will not establish a base or colony in Antarctica in the foreseeable future.
http://qz.com/84669/china-a…
“The Arctic Council, which is now meeting in Sweden, just admitted China as an observer member, along with India, Italy, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.”
http://www.macleans.ca/news…
“There’s a long queue of other players—starting with China, India, South Korea, Singapore, Germany and France and others who want a piece of the action and want to sit at the table,” Grímsson said. “And they are coming with a basket of investment finance.”
It should be obvious that those of us that border it, would have the most interest but more and more nations are now wanting access to it as well esp for the fishing.
With the moon, it will be the poles and the spots with 24×7 lights.
Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that kind of “gold rush” into the arctic.
Thank you for the links.
np.
But, it will be the same for the moon. I think that if Private Space really gets there around 2021/2022, that ESA will likely make use of private space to get themselves going. IOW, they likely build a quick space station with OATK’s idea since it is pretty much European built.
Then simply use private space for lunar landings, base, etc, while they build out their own set-up.
And no doubt a nation like UAE who we see constantly here, will take the private space. Australia might. Sweden, Switzerland, parts of Asia and South America will certainly spend the money.
The list will go on. The reason is that they will want to lay claim to the most important item, which is cheap energy. Once nuclear is available, cheaply, then it will not matter.
I imagine that NASA will be very anxious to line up international and commercial partners for this project. We’ve been calling for more fixed price space act agreements, and this proposal could do the trick.
I realize that this is only a proposal, but they need to flesh it out a whole lot more. There’s way too much of “we can build this for you if you’d like to buy it” and way too little “what are we going to do with it once we’ve got it.”
I’m with you. I don’t think that NASA has got the money to do business-as-usual on this one. It will all depend on how heavy a hand congress will want to lay on this.
I like the idea but wouldn´t setting an outpost outside Earth´s magnetosphere prove troublesome in terms of radiation exposure when we haven´t yet materialized the means to shield manned modules?
That is the big problem to solve for manned spaceflight throughout the solar system.
Lots of water for shielding. In addition, NASA and others working on ways to mitigate this issue.
http://www.universetoday.co…
Tech that needs to be used for radiation shielding too!
Kill two birds with one stone
The problem is the same one: lack of low-weight electricity. Probably the best source is going to be nuclear. In terms of kw / kg, it is likely the best. But it is still not enough. It might be fine for a trip with magnetic shielding if using nuclear thermal engines, but not for landing.
And with Cygnus, it will actually make the radiation problem much worse due to scatter.
Otoh, BA has multiple layers designed to absorb radiation, without degradation, but, it will only capture at best, 50%, and far more likely to be around 10-25%.
Deleted by me
When Bigelow Aerospace presented the GATE I and GATE II architectures to NASA they had a radiation Habitat
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
With that giant white weight with the solar panels on one end, that thing will never fly.
What are you talking about? The “white” thing on the right is a visiting Orion and not part of the station. It doesn’t matter which capsule will eventually visit such a station or how exactly the modules will be arranged.
LOL this is what happens when you want a piece of pie but do not have a lander technology. Jeez, even Masten is ahead of this proposal.
It’s another bad idea from a bad idea company. They can’t build reusable rockets, they can’t build re-entering, and thus reusable, spacecraft. They may be able to sell solid boosters and small diameter aluminium tubes to NASA, but that does not make them a good idea, or what is needed for the sustainable future of launch and spaceflight.
I support SLS. We never should have killed the Saturns. Folks should be happy we are going BEO.
You’re not doing BEO. SLS/Orion is barely capable of a lunar flyby mission, at a cost of several $billion per flight.