Author Topic: NASA Exploration Roadmap: A return to the Moon’s surface documented  (Read 110765 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
You can have a costly and unneeded high maintenance white elephant L2 space station and lots of asteroid and Mars fantasies that are loudly supported by NASA's current leadership,

or you can have regular, efficient, international, affordable, and direct missions to the Lunar polar surface to do ISRU.

Pick one.

If you think there are more choices, show us where the money will come from. 

Ironically, you are missing that the latter of your two 'choices' is not funded either.  Show us where the money is coming from for international ISRU-based lunar landing? Here's a clue - it isn't.  It's your personal fantasy.

Nope. The Europeans aren't building a Service Module for a Lunar mission Orion simply to barter for some ISS benefits. They want to be in on the next big space exploration project.

blah, blah, blah.

HM:  You're absolutely correct that an international ISRU based lunar landing is not solely your personal fantasy.

Interestingly, ironically, or else simply ignoring the truth of the matter, you didn't respond to Ben's salient point above:

I added the bold.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
Sorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2


HM:  You're absolutely correct that an international ISRU based lunar landing is not solely your personal fantasy.

Interestingly, ironically, or else simply ignoring the truth of the matter, you didn't respond to Ben's salient point above:

I added the bold.

Ben is simply wanting the American taxpayer to foot all of the costs of the next big human activity in space exploration. It is not going to happen that way.

Since America is bringing the SLS and Orion to the Lunar surface exploration table, the rest of the world needs to start thinking about what they are willing to contribute.

Russia will have a human carrying spacecraft to low lunar orbit with the PTK NP. Would Russia consider launching the PTK NP on the SLS? What else might Russia want to contribute?

Europe may build Orion Service Modules and ...?

Japan may build...?

China may build...?

India may build...?

South Korea may build...?

Brazil may build...?

Other countries may build...?


And note:

"Aviation Week is reporting that when President Barack Obama's 2014 budget is finally rolled out, it will contain a $100 million line item in the NASA account to start the ball rolling to capture and retrieve an asteroid."

And, "It also might support a return to the moon by putting in place a resource-rich asteroid in ready reach on the lunar surface, however."

From: NASA Asteroid Capture Mission to Be Proposed in 2014 Budget By Mark Whittington  3 hrs ago
At: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-asteroid-capture-mission-proposed-2014-budget-165700415.html


See also:

NASA Wants $100 Million To Catch An Asteroid    By Frank Morring, Jr.  March 28, 2013
At: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_28_2013_p0-564163.xml



There are lots of fragments of asteroids scattered across the Moon. Perhaps there will also be some new money available in NASA's budget for human Lunar surface asteroid fragments missions.

One step at a time.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Sorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.


"Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."

From: President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program  Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy  January 14, 2004
At: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm



"Although of fairly ordinary composition, the moon contains the resources of material and energy that we need to survive and operate in space. With its resources and proximity to Earth, the moon is a natural logistics and supply base, an offshore island of useful commodities for use there, in space and ultimately back on Earth."

And, "Living on the moon will expand the sphere of human and robotic activity in space beyond low-Earth orbit. To become a multiplanet species, we must master the skills of extracting local resources, build our capability to journey and explore in hostile regions, and create new reservoirs of human culture and experience. That long journey begins on the moon -- the staging ground, supply station and classroom for our voyage into the universe."

From: Why We're Going Back to the Moon   By Paul D. Spudis December 27, 2005
At: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600648.html




If minimizing human BLEO space exploration costs is really an issue, and it is, then human and robotic polar Lunar surface missions to do propellant ISRU make a lot more sense than one, or a few, costly and very high risk "flags and footprints' missions to Mars or Phobos, and then a 'no humans to Mars gap' for five or six decades.

And GCRs remain an unresolved issue for the Deep Space Habitat, or DSH, long space missions. GCRs may be addressed with 2 meters of water shielding. If a DSH needs that much water for shielding, the logical place to get it is at the Lunar polar regions. Building a Lunar ISRU base prior to going anywhere with a DSH may be the logical sequence of events.   

 

"If this is the case, then a possible solution is to place an ISS US Lab size module within the Skylab II leaving approximately 2 meters between shells (Figure 6). If the void were filled with water the mass of water alone would be 389 mt. For water mass only, this would take 4-5 launches using the 95 mt SLS."

From : Skylab II   Making a Deep Space Habitat from a Space Launch System Propellant Tank  2012   By Brand N. Griffin, David Smitherman, Kriss J. Kennedy, Larry Toups, Tracy Gill, and A. Scott Howe
At: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016760_2012017550.pdf



Edited.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2013 09:08 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Hap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.

And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1.  The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work).  Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract.  The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2013 09:10 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
Sorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.


"Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."

From: President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program  Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy  January 14, 2004
At: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm



"Although of fairly ordinary composition, the moon contains the resources of material and energy that we need to survive and operate in space. With its resources and proximity to Earth, the moon is a natural logistics and supply base, an offshore island of useful commodities for use there, in space and ultimately back on Earth."

And, "Living on the moon will expand the sphere of human and robotic activity in space beyond low-Earth orbit. To become a multiplanet species, we must master the skills of extracting local resources, build our capability to journey and explore in hostile regions, and create new reservoirs of human culture and experience. That long journey begins on the moon -- the staging ground, supply station and classroom for our voyage into the universe."

From: Why We're Going Back to the Moon   By Paul D. Spudis December 27, 2005
At: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600648.html




If minimizing human BLEO space exploration costs is really an issue, and it is, then human and robotic polar Lunar surface missions to do propellant ISRU make a lot more sense than one, or a few, costly and very high risk "flags and footprints' missions to Mars or Phobos, and then a 'no humans to Mars gap' for five or six decades.

And GCRs remain an unresolved issue for the Deep Space Habitat, or DSH, long space missions. GCRs may be addressed with 2 meters of water shielding. If a DSH needs that much water for shielding, the logical place to get it is at the Lunar polar regions. Building a Lunar ISRU base prior to going anywhere with a DSH may be the logical sequence of events.   

 

"If this is the case, then a possible solution is to place an ISS US Lab size module within the Skylab II leaving approximately 2 meters between shells (Figure 6). If the void were filled with water the mass of water alone would be 389 mt. For water mass only, this would take 4-5 launches using the 95 mt SLS."

From : Skylab II   Making a Deep Space Habitat from a Space Launch System Propellant Tank  2012   By Brand N. Griffin, David Smitherman, Kriss J. Kennedy, Larry Toups, Tracy Gill, and A. Scott Howe
At: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016760_2012017550.pdf



Edited.
Which laws or NASA decisions say NASA MIGHT build, let alone give solid funding to, a L2 station or ISRU landers? Right now the DSH has almost no funding, stations or advanced resource harvesting landers are nowhere near as important as basic landers and the DSH.
Yes these projects might be a smart choice, but in this fiscal climate programs that are risky and require huge down-payments up front won't succeed. We MUST go conventional at least until We have landed on Mars. 

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Hap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.

And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1.  The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work).  Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract.  The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.


One step forward at a time.

Do you have a more useful and logical destination in mind?

Why is your destination more useful and logical than the polar regions of the Moon?

What is Europe willing to contribute to missions to your more useful and logical destination?

The world today is far richer than America was in 1969. At that time, Americans faced many serious issues while we also began to send humans to the Moon.

Maybe I just lack the 'befuddled sky is falling vision' that some folks seem to prefer.

There are too many complaints and excuses, and unfortunately, not enough focus on what is doable, affordable, and useful.

The modern world will support and finance polar Lunar propellant ISRU missions.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
Hap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.

And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1.  The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work).  Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract.  The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.


One step forward at a time.

Do you have a more useful and logical destination in mind?

Why is your destination more useful and logical than the polar regions of the Moon?

What is Europe willing to contribute to missions to your more useful and logical destination?

The world today is far richer than America was in 1969. At that time, Americans faced many serious issues while we also began to send humans to the Moon.

Maybe I just lack the 'befuddled sky is falling vision' that some folks seem to prefer.

There are too many complaints and excuses, and unfortunately, not enough focus on what is doable, affordable, and useful.

The modern world will support and finance polar Lunar propellant ISRU missions.

How many countries have expressed interest in ISRU missions? Is it enough to support an International campaign? Private companies need to do this, not national governments.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Hap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.

And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1.  The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work).  Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract.  The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.


One step forward at a time.

Do you have a more useful and logical destination in mind?

Why is your destination more useful and logical than the polar regions of the Moon?

What is Europe willing to contribute to missions to your more useful and logical destination?

The world today is far richer than America was in 1969. At that time, Americans faced many serious issues while we also began to send humans to the Moon.

Maybe I just lack the 'befuddled sky is falling vision' that some folks seem to prefer.

There are too many complaints and excuses, and unfortunately, not enough focus on what is doable, affordable, and useful.

The modern world will support and finance polar Lunar propellant ISRU missions.

How many countries have expressed interest in ISRU missions? Is it enough to support an International campaign? Private companies need to do this, not national governments.



Many countries are not set up the way America is. NASA can work with our large private companies. National space agencies of various countries can work with NASA. Private companies can do projects when they see a near-term profit.

The complexity, costs, and technical excellence needed for Lunar exploration and the initial ISRU facilities means such efforts will involve both the governments of many countries and various international businesses.

It may be useful for you to read or reread:

Public Law 111-267
At: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ267/pdf/PLAW-111publ267.pdf

"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Sorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.

Im not really sure where you are coming from. I might be reading you out of context. My understanding from the articles on this site is that the L2 station has quite a lot of support and is likely to be on our roadmap to mars. I haven't seen a glimmer of support for anything like an apollo lander, which would be far more expensive.

When I say "quite a lot of support", I dont mean any particular funding or deadline actually exists, I just mean everything else is even further away and generally now includes a mention of an L2 base as an intermediate step. Currently all that is funded is SLS and Orion. What can you do with that? not much, except visit L2. Anything we put there, another Orion, a bigelo module, whatever, could be defined as our station. I have also heard rumours that the "visit to an asteroid" may become a visit to L2 where we have captured some tiny one meter asteroid using purely robotic means.

L2 is the El cheapo option if we dont have anything else.


Offline Crews

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
A few questions for more informed minds than mine:

1) With a 120 day minimum launch facility turn around (initially), am I correct that this results in the need for 180 days stacked (fueled, emptied and refueled up to 18 times if necessary) without needing to be un-stacked?  That is, so, you could have two at ready and configured for different missions-- one in the hanger, and one at the pad can simply be rolled back and the other rolled out should priorities change or problems arise with the first intended launch?

2) What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid?  Is it that it does not require a lander?  We have little we can do at and with an asteroid with which we could not do much more on the Moon.  It seems an overly long and risky mission with minimal returns in comparison to a permanent base on Lunar or Martian surface.

3) The above reminds me of a long standing question about the many Shuttle missions which focused upon, or at least featured, crystal growth in micro-gravity.  To what end were these experiments designed?  Given the expense of multiple shuttle launches with such experiments, there must be something very important about them, but I have never read what that might be.

Offline Crews

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Unfortunately, actually going to the Moon is unfunded blather and will remain so for the foreseeable future, at least as far as the USA is concerned. You'd probably be better off channeling your energies trying to convince the Chinese of the wisdom of Lunar ISRU.

You'll have to excuse Hap, Warren.  He thinks that, because the pro-SLS faction have inserted pro-Lunar language into at least one bill, that means anyone in a position of authority ought to care about returning to the moon or feel bound to act as if Lunar surface has a mandate for action.

FWIW, at the moment, everything beyond EM-2 (HLO orbiter) is unfunded blather at the moment.  I have little confidence that this will change during the current presidential cycle.

I am only quoting the above as place for me to jump in.

* We have acts of law which fund our exploration to specified purposes. 

* We have Design Reference Missions which are the product of what may be both technologically and scientifically desirable and possible if adequate funding is available.

* We have Design Reference Architecture which are the identified needs to accomplish certain goals, funded or not.

I do not think we have any assurance that those three are synchronized.

Each changes, and we have only the most current, and each impacts the subsequent version of the others.

Where those intersect will illuminate what will be in the near future.  Of course, we then immediately revise all three by looking at what we will have in the next several years and where we can go from there.

It is not rocket science to see the political aspect.  Most Presidential Administrations have mimicked Kennedy's "to the Moon..." and awaited the like public support, but mostly end up hearing crickets chirping.  Currently, we have a directive to have the ability to visit an asteroid.  Okay, this Administration has made its mark, by adding that to the mix.

Seriously?  We are going to use a Moon capable resource to go visit a passing rock?  How does that even factor in to the emotional level, much less that scientific or technological?  "Ever since man first looked up into the night sky, he has longed to visit an asteroid" said no human, ever.

So, we have the Moon- achieved but NOT exploited.  We have robotic solar system exploration, achieved and being exploited.  We have robotic orbital Earth Science currently being exploited.  We have a manned orbital science lab, achieved and being exploited.  We have Mars on the horizon and now we have asteroids-- neither achieved and so not possible to exploit.

I look at that list and know what OUGHT to be next, political mark-making excepted.  It has been on the list longer than any other.  The SLS and Orion are specifically for the purpose of beyond LOE, and there is one significantly achievable and un-exploited mission that is obvious.  And exploiting that one, gets us more easily to the next two.

My point is: take the politics out, and it is clear we are going to Moon again-- before we go to Mars.  Anything else is a political decision and not a technological or scientific one.  NASA must operate to please its political overlords, but the DRMs and the DRA do not skip that necessary step.

Crickets may chirp as we return to the Moon, but it is the next step none the less.  Anything else threatens future funding-- politicians be damned.  The reason is simple to understand:

In the year 2035, we skipped the Moon, but visited asteroids and have landed men on Mars for a brief stay.  The public looks on and asks, "What did we gain?  We have no money left to make any use of our accomplishments.  This is the same thing we did in the 1970s-- we got there and then did nothing with it."  That argument has been made since the premature cancellation of Apollo-- and it will continue to be made because it is a valid (and vital) argument-- which demands an answer.

Edmund Hillary's articulation of our nature, "because its there," may drive us outward, but gains in technology and science MUST drive why we do what we do, and when we do it, in space exploration.


 

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Thank you Crews. And Amen.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
"Space Radiation mitigation
Technical Challenges and Approach
Space radiation mitigation was rated the highest priority technology for human spaceflight in the NRC report. Human missions beyond LEO will require new countermeasures and shielding technologies for space radiation, and developing those technologies requires more specific knowledge and understanding about space radiation and its effects on humans.

From: Page 33 of:  NASA Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan
At: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/space_tech_2013.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/30/2013 03:49 pm by Chris Bergin »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
My understanding from the articles on this site is that the L2 station has quite a lot of support and is likely to be on our roadmap to mars. I haven't seen a glimmer of support for anything like an apollo lander, which would be far more expensive.

There does appear to be support for an L-point station, even if it should be considered at the wrong location.  It is not already true that a lander would be "far more expensive".  There are no designs to compare to.  Certainly a station about the size of the Apollo ascent module would be less expensive than a complete lander.  It is not expected that the station will be as sparsely equipped as that module.

Until there are designs that can be compared, all the pricing comparisons are based upon is arm waving by authority.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline davey142

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 671
Sorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.

Im not really sure where you are coming from. I might be reading you out of context. My understanding from the articles on this site is that the L2 station has quite a lot of support and is likely to be on our roadmap to mars. I haven't seen a glimmer of support for anything like an apollo lander, which would be far more expensive.

When I say "quite a lot of support", I dont mean any particular funding or deadline actually exists, I just mean everything else is even further away and generally now includes a mention of an L2 base as an intermediate step. Currently all that is funded is SLS and Orion. What can you do with that? not much, except visit L2. Anything we put there, another Orion, a bigelo module, whatever, could be defined as our station. I have also heard rumours that the "visit to an asteroid" may become a visit to L2 where we have captured some tiny one meter asteroid using purely robotic means.

L2 is the El cheapo option if we dont have anything else.


My point is if NASA wants to land on the moon, it will need landers. An L2 station would not be necessary or effective.
Lets start of with: what do we want our station to do? A research complex, refueling depot, crew "hotel." This will require space (volume) and money.
How will this station make itself worth the investment? Maybe if the flight rate of SLS was higher (3-4 per year) a station like this could be worth the cost. At this flight rate, serving as a resting place for a crew, refueling an EDS, or serving as a research lab for a few weeks every year and a half will be beneficial, but not cost-effective.

NASA might very well fund and build an L2 station, but I believe it will be  another distraction for NASA's exploration program, kind of like the Space Shuttle was a result of NASA being distracted with reusability and heavy lifter designs. At this flight rate and with this level of funding NASA needs to get to Mars as simply as possible. That means landers (maybe some for lunar landings), a DSH, and the Orion capsule with some surface flights to non-Mars locations (Moon, NEOs). The key being some, not many.

As for bringing asteroids to L2, that might actually be a smart idea. The key is to bring asteroids that are large enough and interesting enough to demand an SLS launch and several crew members to be put in harms way.

Edit: At least with landers you can say to the public: Look we landed and some cool things. With a station and no landings, what are you going to tell the public when they ask about those billions spent on "exploration?"
« Last Edit: 03/30/2013 12:32 pm by davey142 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
As for bringing asteroids to L2, that might actually be a smart idea. The key is to bring asteroids that are large enough and interesting enough to demand an SLS launch and several crew members to be put in harms way.

It's not a smart idea. 

It is a smokescreen to distract public attention from the apparently scheduled inability to to launch anybody on a US government vehicle for a decade or more, for one thing.  For another, the groundwork is being laid for an expensive boondoggle by deliberately including "optimistic" (in the OIG sense) cost projections, with full admission that their own stated costs are fraught with inaccuracy.

If the Keck study were true, it should cost "only" about $2.65B to catch and retrieve a 7m rock over the course of ten years.  (As an aside, this would cover the retirement of key older players.)  If the JWST pricing factor on such an ambitious mission is applied ($8.8B/$0.5B), it would cost $46B, and still not have flown inside the decade.

The $2.65B figure is simply false.

From the Conclusion portion of the Keck study:

"The study also considered an alternative concept in which the spacecraft picks up a ~7-m diameter rock from the surface of a much larger asteroid (> 100-m diameter). The advantage of this approach is that asteroids 100-m in diameter or greater are much easier to discover and characterize. This advantage is somewhat offset by the added complexity of trying to pick up a large 7-m diameter rock from the surface, and the fact that there are far fewer 100-m class NEAs than smaller ones making it more difficult to find ones with the desired orbital characteristics."

Here's an example of "optimism", my bold:  "Somewhat offset".  They breezily wave their arms about complexity.

Note that in the conclusion, they do not discuss funding instability in the least.  This is thought to be one of the key factors for mission cost bloat and delay.

Asteroid retrieval is simply not a smart idea.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2013 01:06 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid?

Welcome to NSF.  ;)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
2) What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid?  Is it that it does not require a lander?  We have little we can do at and with an asteroid with which we could not do much more on the Moon.  It seems an overly long and risky mission with minimal returns in comparison to a permanent base on Lunar or Martian surface.

I'm not sure but I think the rationale is that it will enable NASA to develop skills, knowledge and experience for long-duration deep space missions.  The difference from ISS is, of course, that the vehicle must remain operable for periods of over 6 months without a ready source of spare parts available, which ISS has.  You do progressively longer NEA missions to smooth out the systems on the DSH until it is ready for The Big One (Mars footprints and flags).

Frankly, I've never been much of a convert to the concept.  If you want to have dry run missions, floating a DSH at one of the EML points is cheaper and makes it easier (actually, it makes it possible) for the crew to abort back to Earth if the ECLSS breaks down or something.  There are good scientific reasons to visit many NEAs and other asteroid bodies, particularly main belt objects.  However, they are all actually more distant and difficult to reach than Mars so are worthless as rehearsal flights for Mars missions.

The Moon and cis-Lunar space is a lot more rational as a place to develop deep space technologies (and do useful space science in the process) but, and this is a key point, no-one in a position of authority is seriously talking about going there.  There's a lot of stuff on the US statute books on the subject but as no-one is willing to actually appropriate funds for the hardware you need to get on the lunar surface and no-one else is willing to make them for NASA without the US government footing a large bit of the bill, it seems that, some time around 2025, there is going to be a shot out into the unknown toward <$UNDEF_NEA.OBJ> and a lot of prayer that they haven't sent four astronauts on the most expensive space burial in history.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
{snip}
2) What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid?  Is it that it does not require a lander?  We have little we can do at and with an asteroid with which we could not do much more on the Moon.  It seems an overly long and risky mission with minimal returns in comparison to a permanent base on Lunar or Martian surface.

To go to Mars NASA needs to develop both a Mars Transfer Vehicle and a lander.  To do something useful there other equipment like rovers and building for the base will also be needed.

A Near Earth Asteroid or object (NEO) mission can use a Mars Transfer Vehicle and a short range vehicle to cover the last 100 yards.

The same design of Mars Transfer Vehicle can be used for the NEO mission and future Mars missions.


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0