That is an interesting concept. Note the shape of the habitat and laboratory modules. Looks like they would replace the connection between Orion and SLS. The modules with the external tanks look too wide to fit on SLS. I wonder how that would work.
The tank section should fit in SLS cargo version with large fairing. Propulsion module looks like a well insulated Centuar. I'm picking there are a few Vulcan launches to fill those tanks and maybe for delivery of propulsion modules.With cryo cooler fuel storage is not an issue.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/18/2016 04:30 pmThe tank section should fit in SLS cargo version with large fairing. Propulsion module looks like a well insulated Centuar. I'm picking there are a few Vulcan launches to fill those tanks and maybe for delivery of propulsion modules.With cryo cooler fuel storage is not an issue.They also mentioned electric propulsion would be involved with transferring it from the Lunar to Martian vicinity. Assuming SEP is built into the OML, I could only assume the refitted Centaur is meant more for departing vehicles than the OML. Beyond that hydrogen is a surprising choice; ambitious but difficult to keep that particular fuel chilled; I would have favored methane but if that really is a Centaur-based stage perhaps they were going with its existing fuel type.Like most other ideas it's questionable if it will leave the blueprints, but it may have some potential. The abundance of cryogenic propellant tanks implies this lab could double as a fuel depot (which many around here seem to advocate for both Lunar and Martian activities) and I like the prospects of exploring the Martian moons, which would be possible even with the limitations of an Orion's service module. I'm not sure what kind of science it could do related to Mars, as I suspect that may be limited by what kind of orbit it is put in which is my main query about this thing.A low Martian orbit would obviously generate great remote science not unlike the ISS around Earth, but there's no benefit to orbital mechanics apart from making it easy to reach via MAV, and the windows for reaching it would be complicated. A synchronous orbit could be a possibility, but it would limit remote science to a distant view of a single hemisphere. Otherwise, I can only assume some kind of medium orbit is the choice, probably something close to Phobos'. Again, where exactly they would put this laboratory is what I'd like to know.
Stored LH2 was done during Apollo. No point in designing a mission orbit based on remote imaging from the manned platform. As far as science, it would aid in operation of Mars 2020 and potentially other international rovers.
If we want to drive a rover from orbit, it would most likely be a simpler rover with fewer instruments that driving it does not require the consensus of a 300+ person team. Considering the type of mass margins HSF has, I see it being something in Pathfinder class sent to Mars along with the human crew and dropped to Mars around the time the humans arrive on Mars orbit. The Manned Venus Flyby from the Apollo Applications Program expected that the astronauts would drop 4 probes on Venus, Pioneer Venus style. Granted, there were no probes on Venus at the time.What is far more likely is Phobos and Deimos crewed exploration. While keeping the astronauts tethered to those bodies is a huge challenge (think Rosetta) it does not require EDL. Also I see the whole mission staying at Mars vicinity closer to 30 days rather than 11 months, but is good to originally plan for 11 months so that when the challenges increase and finding gets tight it can get descoped and saved.
As far as the rover idea...I would think it'd be more cost effective to reprogram a living rover (such as the '2020 or the future MSR retrieval rover) to take commands.
If we want to drive a rover from orbit, it would most likely be a simpler rover with fewer instruments that driving it does not require the consensus of a 300+ person team.
http://www.popsci.com/lockheed-martin-aiming-to-put-astronauts-in-mars-orbit-by-2028So this is interesting... that's almost SpaceX-esque schedule aggression, too.I'd love to hear your thoughts about the viability of this very neat looking paper platform. It seems to use components which already exist predominantly, and would give SLS something to do.Truly exciting if it ever goes beyond the hot air stage.
It looks interesting, but I can't get to the link. I get an error message and a default return to the popsci.com.au web page. Does anyone know how to get around this? This is a problem I have with all popsci links, not just this one BTW.
Quote from: AegeanBlue on 05/18/2016 06:42 pmIf we want to drive a rover from orbit, it would most likely be a simpler rover with fewer instruments that driving it does not require the consensus of a 300+ person team. Why would we want to drive it from orbit? Considering that self-driving cars already exist, and Google and others are constantly investing in making them better, and that you'll probably be able to buy one in no more than a decade, and driving on Mars does not require avoiding pedestrians or other traffic, there's no reason why a person will really have to do much driving with a robot on Mars. The robot is going to be really smart and will drive itself, only needing human intervention rarely. So having an astronaut hanging around for that rare instant when the robot needs help makes no sense.The telerobotics operation argument is often made, but never really thought through. It's asserted, but not really examined. People like to talk about low-latency and quick response times without really explaining or examining what the value of that is. What is really needed is a clear definition of exactly what you want a rover to do, and then an examination of how the rover will do that, and then an analysis of whether or not the human with a quick response time can make that any better. And you need to do that not only for the period when humans are in orbit and can control a rover, but look at it for the entire lifetime of the rover. Look at it this way--suppose your rover is designed with a 4-year (2 Martian years) lifetime. But the humans are only going to be there for maybe 260 days. And because of various other things they have to do, they can only interact with the rover for 160 days. Is it worth developing telerobotics capabilities for 160 days for a rover that is going to operate at least 4 years? Why bother? The science improvement would have to be really really good to make sense. And nobody has really demonstrated that.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/19/2016 03:38 amIt looks interesting, but I can't get to the link. I get an error message and a default return to the popsci.com.au web page. Does anyone know how to get around this? This is a problem I have with all popsci links, not just this one BTW.Me too. I've complained to popsci over the years but they're either too stupid to understand the problem or they just don't care. Use a web anonymizer.
I think it is reasonable to expect astronauts to be able to control a surface operations for the full 540 days in Mars orbit.
Why would we want to drive it from orbit? Considering that self-driving cars already exist, and Google and others are constantly investing in making them better, and that you'll probably be able to buy one in no more than a decade, and driving on Mars does not require avoiding pedestrians or other traffic, there's no reason why a person will really have to do much driving with a robot on Mars. The robot is going to be really smart and will drive itself, only needing human intervention rarely. So having an astronaut hanging around for that rare instant when the robot needs help makes no sense.