Total Members Voted: 102
Voting closed: 02/12/2016 08:01 pm
The USA does not need another refocus of what to do in space. Every time there is a refocus the POR get's brushed aside and a new one is put in place.Of all the many dozens of HSF plans put into motion in the past 40 decades less than a handfull actually became reality: STS and the space station. All other lofty goals, including many Moon plans and many Mars plans came to nothing.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 11/05/2015 09:29 amRovers built for Martian gravity should work on the Moon. They will have to be designed to lose heat by radiation. I suspect that the radiators will work on Mars.For gravity loads, sure, but otherwise, no, it probably wouldn't work. The heat loads / temperature extremes are much too different, there's much less of a day/night swing on Mars, the Martian atmosphere is useful both as insulation for the night time and can help with taking away heat during the day, whereas in a vacuum, as on the Moon, only radiating away the heat is possible. You want to reject as much of it during the lunar day and keep as much of it during the lunar night. A rover built for Mars would overheat during the day and freeze at night on the Moon. A rover built for the Moon might work on Mars, though. Mars is much milder and is less harsh of an environment than the Moon.
Rovers built for Martian gravity should work on the Moon. They will have to be designed to lose heat by radiation. I suspect that the radiators will work on Mars.
I think NASA or even SpaceX should at least send some ISRU equipment to the moon to test how hard it would be to manufacture lox, or obtain other materials. This equipment could also be used on Mars. The only other reason is to explore the polar regions and craters for water. Otherwise, no real reason. If Lox could be made and thrown into orbit via electromagnetic rail. Capture and take to a fuel depot at one of the LaGrange points, then it would be worth the effort. With a refueling depot in LEO and one at an L point, a robust Mars transportation infrastructure could be build. It would be great if all spacefaring nations could work together on this.
I definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/06/2015 01:23 pmThe USA does not need another refocus of what to do in space. Every time there is a refocus the POR get's brushed aside and a new one is put in place.Of all the many dozens of HSF plans put into motion in the past 40 decades less than a handfull actually became reality: STS and the space station. All other lofty goals, including many Moon plans and many Mars plans came to nothing.That is definitely a good observation, but there is a pattern to it. The more a program cost the more likely it is to get canceled. The longer a program takes the more likely it is to get canceled. The more people are unclear about the benefits the more likely it is to get cancelled. There few projects that would cost more and take longer than a manned Mars program. At the same time I do not believe it is clear what the benefits will be. Honestly I definitely want to see a manned Mars mission happen, but I highly doubt that it will survive given it is a multi-decade that will cost many 10s of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Going back to the moon will be expensive and take time, but not nearly as much as going to Mars. I also believe that going back to the Moon will significantly lower costs and risks for eventually to going to Mars.
Quote from: spacenut on 11/06/2015 03:49 pmI think NASA or even SpaceX should at least send some ISRU equipment to the moon to test how hard it would be to manufacture lox, or obtain other materials. This equipment could also be used on Mars. The only other reason is to explore the polar regions and craters for water. Otherwise, no real reason. If Lox could be made and thrown into orbit via electromagnetic rail. Capture and take to a fuel depot at one of the LaGrange points, then it would be worth the effort. With a refueling depot in LEO and one at an L point, a robust Mars transportation infrastructure could be build. It would be great if all spacefaring nations could work together on this. Both Nasa and SpaceX want to use Methane based fuels on Mars. Granted, the same processes used for mining LOX are transferrable to the needs of a Mars colony, but these are extremely different regoliths in different gravity wells.
Quote from: RonM on 11/06/2015 03:34 pmQuote from: KelvinZero on 11/06/2015 03:25 amQuote from: gbaikie on 11/05/2015 05:17 pmRather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.I doubt it.Though if you included micrometeorite impact damage, that could be more convincing.If ISS is crashed into our atmosphere in 2028, then ISS would be about as old as the Shuttle.It seems unlikely that ISS has had an equal or greater amount of structural damage per year as the Shuttle orbiters.QuoteNewer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.The Soviets always cause trouble.A saner person flees from it, and there is lots doing so- one might hope they continue have somewhere to flee to. And one could imagine it doesn't look good.The economic contrast between NASA and Russian Space agency is interesting. In overly simplistic terms,imagine what the Russian Space agency could do if it had NASA's budget?Of course it does not remotely work that way, obviously Russian corruption makes American government corruption seem insignificant/civilized, though in terms of quantity money, the Russians are taking rubles vs dollars.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 11/06/2015 03:25 amQuote from: gbaikie on 11/05/2015 05:17 pmRather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.
Quote from: gbaikie on 11/05/2015 05:17 pmRather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
Newer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.
Quote from: gbaikie on 11/06/2015 07:06 pmQuote from: RonM on 11/06/2015 03:34 pmQuote from: KelvinZero on 11/06/2015 03:25 amQuote from: gbaikie on 11/05/2015 05:17 pmRather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.I doubt it.Though if you included micrometeorite impact damage, that could be more convincing.If ISS is crashed into our atmosphere in 2028, then ISS would be about as old as the Shuttle.It seems unlikely that ISS has had an equal or greater amount of structural damage per year as the Shuttle orbiters.QuoteNewer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.The Soviets always cause trouble.A saner person flees from it, and there is lots doing so- one might hope they continue have somewhere to flee to. And one could imagine it doesn't look good.The economic contrast between NASA and Russian Space agency is interesting. In overly simplistic terms,imagine what the Russian Space agency could do if it had NASA's budget?Of course it does not remotely work that way, obviously Russian corruption makes American government corruption seem insignificant/civilized, though in terms of quantity money, the Russians are taking rubles vs dollars.Comparing ISS to the Shuttle is the proverbial comparing apples to oranges. I suggest you search threads about retiring ISS to see why it can't keep flying. It's engineering, not opinion.Even if ISS could last indefinitely, keeping it operational would cost billions of dollars per year. NASA needs that money post-ISS to fund exploration. After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept.Don't forget the upcoming Chinese space station. At least Russia and ESA are talking to China about it. That's probably the group heading to the Moon with or without NASA.BTW, the Soviet Union went out of business in 1991.
So if "After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept." Was true, then a commercial interest taking over ISS would be cheaper than building a launching a new station. And considering NASA could spend about 1 billion dollar on a program to de-orbiting ISS, one starting with 1 billion dollar ahead of the game.It's true that ISS is not in a good location, but there could be some commercial value associated to flying at 51 inclination- or it's negative but could have some positives. But it would depend on what commercial activity was involved.
Quote from: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 02:48 amSo if "After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept." Was true, then a commercial interest taking over ISS would be cheaper than building a launching a new station. And considering NASA could spend about 1 billion dollar on a program to de-orbiting ISS, one starting with 1 billion dollar ahead of the game.It's true that ISS is not in a good location, but there could be some commercial value associated to flying at 51 inclination- or it's negative but could have some positives. But it would depend on what commercial activity was involved.Perhaps a commercial interest could figure out what to do with ISS and keep it flying. Reconfigure, salvage or deorbit what's no longer needed, add a Bigelow module, etc.
I don’t think the moon will be a thought for the next administration at all. They will have nothing capable of going to it at the time when they would be willing to plan it. SLS’s planned test launch should nothing happen is 2018 and it isn’t planned to carry crew till 2021(and probably 2023). The first manned flight is pretty much already out of his term. In order to land on the moon you would need to convince this administration to fund or find a partner for a lander not likely.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 11/06/2015 08:04 pmI definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon. The idea that you can re-use spacecraft in vastly different locations is almost always a bad one. Lunar 2-week day/night cycles require different thermal and electronics storage design, lunar 2-second signal lag opens up vastly more powerful options for teleoperations. Landing and hence egress methods are different, too. And a myriad of other things. Its just a bad idea.
I think exploring the Moon with hoppers rather than rovers could a good idea which also can be used on Mars for exploration. The Moon's gravity is about 1/6th Earth and Mars is about 1/3, so hoppers could function better with lunar gravity and the rugged terrain of where you want to explore for water deposits, may be more suitable for the Moon, but using the Moon as testbed for hoppers could develop this method and one can expect improvements in the design and operation so that one has a better hoppers available to use with Mars exploration.
Quote from: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 04:40 pmI think exploring the Moon with hoppers rather than rovers could a good idea which also can be used on Mars for exploration. The Moon's gravity is about 1/6th Earth and Mars is about 1/3, so hoppers could function better with lunar gravity and the rugged terrain of where you want to explore for water deposits, may be more suitable for the Moon, but using the Moon as testbed for hoppers could develop this method and one can expect improvements in the design and operation so that one has a better hoppers available to use with Mars exploration.A lack of gravity is bad for things with wheels in general, especially when moving at considerable velocities. Hoppers are faster, but also burn resources a lot faster and rocket engines wear out faster than electric motors generally. A hopper can't easily haul cargo, whilst a wheeled craft can.Edit: You can't make a hopper excavator easily, for one.
For example, take at the differences between the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and a typical Earth Observation satellite. When you at them they appear to be largely the same.
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...