Very interesting hearing. But I was disapointed that Bigelow wasn't invited to the hearing. ATK-Orbital, Boeing and LM were all there. Orbital seemed concerned about the 30% skin in the game requirement for the Nextstep-2 proposal. Culbertson wondered whether NASA would allow them to get some of that money back through commercialization of their habitats. Andy Weir was very pro-commercial sector. I am not sure that the House committee expected this. Crusan said that that NASA may procure a deep space habitat under fixed price for parts of the habitat (for example, the module itself) but cost plus for the more risky parts of the habitat. Weir discussed about artificial gravity for a while. He said that you would need a 450m cable for it to work. You could have modules at both end of the cable. He said that the cable would be long but that it would only weight a fraction of the weight of the ISS (85,000 pounds, I believe). So it would be doable. He said that it would mitigate the problems that the crew would have if it stays in zero G for too long prior to getting to Mars. He said that crews coming from the ISS take weeks to get used to Earth gravity and that this would also be an issue when astronauts land on Mars. His artificial gravity idea would fix this problem.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/19/2016 02:30 amVery interesting hearing. But I was disapointed that Bigelow wasn't invited to the hearing. ATK-Orbital, Boeing and LM were all there. Orbital seemed concerned about the 30% skin in the game requirement for the Nextstep-2 proposal. Culbertson wondered whether NASA would allow them to get some of that money back through commercialization of their habitats. Andy Weir was very pro-commercial sector. I am not sure that the House committee expected this. Crusan said that that NASA may procure a deep space habitat under fixed price for parts of the habitat (for example, the module itself) but cost plus for the more risky parts of the habitat. Weir discussed about artificial gravity for a while. He said that you would need a 450m cable for it to work. You could have modules at both end of the cable. He said that the cable would be long but that it would only weight a fraction of the weight of the ISS (85,000 pounds, I believe). So it would be doable. He said that it would mitigate the problems that the crew would have if it stays in zero G for too long prior to getting to Mars. He said that crews coming from the ISS take weeks to get used to Earth gravity and that this would also be an issue when astronauts land on Mars. His artificial gravity idea would fix this problem. Between his testimony here, and some of his statements at the H2M conference, I'm even more impressed with Andy Weir than I was from reading his book. Glad someone finally pointed out how badly we need a variable gravity research capability in space.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 05/19/2016 04:16 amQuote from: yg1968 on 05/19/2016 02:30 amVery interesting hearing. But I was disapointed that Bigelow wasn't invited to the hearing. ATK-Orbital, Boeing and LM were all there. Orbital seemed concerned about the 30% skin in the game requirement for the Nextstep-2 proposal. Culbertson wondered whether NASA would allow them to get some of that money back through commercialization of their habitats. Andy Weir was very pro-commercial sector. I am not sure that the House committee expected this. Crusan said that that NASA may procure a deep space habitat under fixed price for parts of the habitat (for example, the module itself) but cost plus for the more risky parts of the habitat. Weir discussed about artificial gravity for a while. He said that you would need a 450m cable for it to work. You could have modules at both end of the cable. He said that the cable would be long but that it would only weight a fraction of the weight of the ISS (85,000 pounds, I believe). So it would be doable. He said that it would mitigate the problems that the crew would have if it stays in zero G for too long prior to getting to Mars. He said that crews coming from the ISS take weeks to get used to Earth gravity and that this would also be an issue when astronauts land on Mars. His artificial gravity idea would fix this problem. Between his testimony here, and some of his statements at the H2M conference, I'm even more impressed with Andy Weir than I was from reading his book. Glad someone finally pointed out how badly we need a variable gravity research capability in space.~JonYour new-found spokesperson was 'edged out' by someone named von Braun 65 years ago.
Except for us O'Neillians.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/01/2016 11:13 pmExcept for us O'Neillians.Aren't we all O'Neillians? Except we may have different ideas on the natural progression towards them.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/01/2016 07:27 pmMars is the consensus primary end-goal of the space community. Some think we should go to the Moon first, some think asteroids, some think just to go straight there, but a solid super-duper-majority of the human spaceflight community agree that Mars is a good goal, whether near or far term.'A few humans' sounds awfully close to Flags and Footprints. Don't think there are (hardly) any left in the space community that believe F&F is still a viable end in human space flight.
Mars is the consensus primary end-goal of the space community. Some think we should go to the Moon first, some think asteroids, some think just to go straight there, but a solid super-duper-majority of the human spaceflight community agree that Mars is a good goal, whether near or far term.
Personally, I think we should do all of the above, but there's no funding for that. Doesn't seem to be enough funding for any of it.
Wayne Hale: what about artificial gravity? Gerst: fine to discuss in movie world but not in my world. No studies show we need it.
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/02/2016 05:15 amQuote from: QuantumG on 06/01/2016 11:13 pmExcept for us O'Neillians.Aren't we all O'Neillians? Except we may have different ideas on the natural progression towards them.If someone is pro space colony and asteroid mining, then setting up a colony on Mars would be a waste of time. Why go back to a gravity well?
Quote from: spacepolicyonlineWayne Hale: what about artificial gravity? Gerst: fine to discuss in movie world but not in my world. No studies show we need it.https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/757938498175283200
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/27/2016 12:15 amQuote from: spacepolicyonlineWayne Hale: what about artificial gravity? Gerst: fine to discuss in movie world but not in my world. No studies show we need it.https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/757938498175283200For NASA going to Mars, which is likely in a very limited way, that makes sense.Artificial gravity is going to take years to develop and iterate, and though it might be required once we start expanding humanity out into space in meaningful numbers, for a four person mission to Mars it's not cost effective. Habs will do fine for now, especially since the likelihood that NASA will get funded to go to Mars anytime soon is pretty slim...