Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday April 15 2019, @03:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the progress? dept.

Lockheed Martin offers architecture for 2024 human lunar landing

Lockheed Martin says it has developed an approach to achieving the goal of landing humans on the south pole of the moon by 2024, but warns that construction of essential hardware would have to start soon to meet that deadline.

In a briefing at the 35th Space Symposium here April 10, company officials said they can make extensive use of existing hardware to develop components like a scaled-down version of the lunar Gateway and a two-stage lunar lander on an accelerated schedule.

While many details have yet to be worked out, the basic elements of the plan, Lockheed argues, demonstrates that the ability to meet the 2024 deadline established March 26 by Vice President Mike Pence in a National Space Council speech is at least technically feasible, if challenging.

[...] Lockheed's plan would diverge from NASA's old approach after Exploration Mission (EM) 1, an uncrewed test of the Orion spacecraft launched by the Space Launch System in 2020. The company proposes launching a "Phase 1" Gateway in 2022 consisting of just the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and a small habitation module with docking ports. NASA expects to issue awards for the PPE in May, while the habitation module could be adapted from ongoing studies that are part of NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships, or NextSTEP, program.

Also at Space.com.

See also: Falcon Heavy's first commercial flight is 'huge' as 'an inflection point' for SpaceX, banker says

Previously: Is the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway the Right Way to the Moon?
Canada Will Contribute to the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway
Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @01:09PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @01:09PM (#829790)

    Depending on how much is in the standard, that's easy or impossible.

    To save a crew, one could rendezvous and spacewalk.
    To couple two space craft, one expects structures and a sealed hatch, but it could go much further.
    Much further probably pushes to impossible. Consider:
    1) A common plan for moving electrical power.
    2) Connections for housekeeping like cooling and breathing
    3) Agreement on what fuel and how to transfer
    4) Agreement on data links and vehicle dynamics, and how to control the common spacecraft.

    For openers, you would like to see a single (androgynous?) docking interface.
    It would be a good sanity check to see how all these proposals deal with this aspect.
    There appears to have been some work in this direction, any clues as to how accepted or workable they are?

    https://web.archive.org/web/20131216200055/http://internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSS_IDD_Rev_C_11_22_13_FINAL.pdf [archive.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @03:27PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @03:27PM (#829870)

    thanks for the link.
    i was just trying to point out that "some" might try to use the (renewed) spirit of space exploration for plain earthly gains.
    one easy way is to go proprietary.

    everybody can roll their own from scratch on earth. the resources are all under eachs feet. space is vast and monstrous in size.
    sure these facts might be tempting for some to proof they can go it alone. i guess some(one) will.

    others will realize that in this enormous space and the vaste distances interoperability vastly increases reliability, since the (life sustaining) spare part isn't just
    "under your feet" and a new one might be far far away but a 50% loaded one (shareable) is a few hours away?

    however, i think once resources really flow the other way, from space to earth not the other way around, the industry will demand a common standard.
    no more different units, different electrical system, in short no more snowflakes. get with the program.

    if i remember correctly, some satellit building companies (which don't interoperate) have a "common" frame onto which mission required equipment is bolted on?

    pipe mating, scew sizes etc etc we already have agreed on on earth. still need a "universal wall socket plug" when going travelling :) most ac/dc adaptors work 110/60 and 230/50 so there's that.
    computer (PC) stuff pretty much across manufacturers (ex. cpu socket and "better" generation RAM).

    i just hope not too many lives are lost in space exporation because of the "pride to go it alone" before the realization of the vastness of space firmly crushes the
    snowflake ideology of some meaty speke on this rock ^_^ (or, psssh, send them first)

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday April 15 2019, @04:50PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday April 15 2019, @04:50PM (#829926)

      It's not pride, it's $. The evil aim of "standardisation" is to get as much of $COMPANY tech into the standard so that $COMPANY can charge for licensing.