Personally I think having a geology/chem lab in orbit is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the telerobotics aspect. The first mission can pathfind the safety, taking along the best spacecraft trouble-shooting astronauts on that mission. The 2nd mission can take the RV sized chem lab along with the geologist/chemist astronauts.That 2nd mission can gather multiple samples brought up by several Mars Ascent Vehicles, and do all the ISRU experiments on larger and more diverse sample sets than we’d bother trying to get all the way back to Earth. Also by getting rid of the 6 month trip bringing rocks back to Earth, the 2nd, 3rd, etc. Rover/MAV pairs could be quickly refocused on finding and bringing up only the best rocks for IRSU, without all that lag in figuring which ones are good.
Just like the famous ISS calcium crystal clogged urine recycler problem, I wouldn’t trust anyone’s life to ISRU produced water, oxygen or fuel, unless it had been tested against more than a few rocks brought back to Earth. It should also be attempted using the same industrial processes on the scale as what will eventually be needed to be useful for human exploration.
It might be the best way to get a foothold on Mars without ever having to develop huge landers that need to take all their consumables down with them…
We use satellite relays on Earth for telerobotics, so why not Mars. Examples include ROVs, UAVs, robotic surgery, control of robotic equipment on the ISS, control of ground robotics by the ISS. Why should Mars be any different.I suspect that the orbit will be a compromise between propulsion requirements, Phobos (and/or Deimos) requirements, and communications.
Quote from: dchill on 05/26/2016 01:21 pmPersonally I think having a geology/chem lab in orbit is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the telerobotics aspect. The first mission can pathfind the safety, taking along the best spacecraft trouble-shooting astronauts on that mission. The 2nd mission can take the RV sized chem lab along with the geologist/chemist astronauts.That 2nd mission can gather multiple samples brought up by several Mars Ascent Vehicles, and do all the ISRU experiments on larger and more diverse sample sets than we’d bother trying to get all the way back to Earth. Also by getting rid of the 6 month trip bringing rocks back to Earth, the 2nd, 3rd, etc. Rover/MAV pairs could be quickly refocused on finding and bringing up only the best rocks for IRSU, without all that lag in figuring which ones are good.Except that an orbital lab will not have the capability of an earth based lab, and to improve on the basic capabilities on something on the surface would need to develop a whole range of handling equipment from scratch.
Quote from: redliox on 05/24/2016 06:33 pmI understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy. One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!
I understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy. One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?
Well, long duration spaceflight experience, having effectively a space station in Mars orbit, base for landers to the martian moons and to mars surface, somewhere to tack additional modules onto later on, could be expanded out and given depot functionality... list goes on. ...
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/25/2016 11:17 pmQuote from: redliox on 05/24/2016 06:33 pmI understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy. One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!Disappointing, if so. Telerobotics is neat, but it's not worth just sending people Mars for telerobotics.
Well, long duration spaceflight experience, having effectively a space station in Mars orbit, base for landers to the martian moons and to mars surface, somewhere to tack additional modules onto later on, could be expanded out and given depot functionality... list goes on. Ultimately I think ISS-esque multi-module space stations are not the way to get there, they're something that should be a result of people going to Mars, not a catalyst for. Big multi-functional monoliths defeat in-orbit assembly if you're happy to spend enough initial dollars cracking open reuse, ground handling and logistics. I view the proposal as a trimmed down battlestar galactica, but still more favourable than current NASA Mars planning.
Quote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/27/2016 02:45 amWell, long duration spaceflight experience, having effectively a space station in Mars orbit, base for landers to the martian moons and to mars surface, somewhere to tack additional modules onto later on, could be expanded out and given depot functionality... list goes on. Ultimately I think ISS-esque multi-module space stations are not the way to get there, they're something that should be a result of people going to Mars, not a catalyst for. Big multi-functional monoliths defeat in-orbit assembly if you're happy to spend enough initial dollars cracking open reuse, ground handling and logistics. I view the proposal as a trimmed down battlestar galactica, but still more favourable than current NASA Mars planning.Current NASA Mars planning is about surface exploration, which is the whole point of going to Mars. How is telerobotics from Mars orbit more favourable?
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/29/2016 05:30 amQuote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/27/2016 02:45 amWell, long duration spaceflight experience, having effectively a space station in Mars orbit, base for landers to the martian moons and to mars surface, somewhere to tack additional modules onto later on, could be expanded out and given depot functionality... list goes on. Ultimately I think ISS-esque multi-module space stations are not the way to get there, they're something that should be a result of people going to Mars, not a catalyst for. Big multi-functional monoliths defeat in-orbit assembly if you're happy to spend enough initial dollars cracking open reuse, ground handling and logistics. I view the proposal as a trimmed down battlestar galactica, but still more favourable than current NASA Mars planning.Current NASA Mars planning is about surface exploration, which is the whole point of going to Mars. How is telerobotics from Mars orbit more favourable?In doing prep-work to ensure the crew lander doesn't land in a boulder field by accident?
So Dali, what orbit would YOU put your telerobotics project into?
As for what orbit it all depends on what you want to do.
If you are using SEP and only want to do teleoperations, then aerostationary might be the best. Though this might restrict landing sites to low or mid latitudes. However no relays would be required.
if you use chemical propulsion with or without aerocapture, then Molniya type orbits might possible, again without relays.However if you want minimum energy transfers to Phobos and/or Deimos, then lower, circular orbits night be better. And you would need relays.
So for a combined teleoperation/PhD mission which orbit you chose much depends on the dV capability of Orion (possibility with an additional propulsion system, as indicated in the picture.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/27/2016 01:22 amQuote from: dchill on 05/26/2016 01:21 pmPersonally I think having a geology/chem lab in orbit is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the telerobotics aspect. The first mission can pathfind the safety, taking along the best spacecraft trouble-shooting astronauts on that mission. The 2nd mission can take the RV sized chem lab along with the geologist/chemist astronauts.That 2nd mission can gather multiple samples brought up by several Mars Ascent Vehicles, and do all the ISRU experiments on larger and more diverse sample sets than we’d bother trying to get all the way back to Earth. Also by getting rid of the 6 month trip bringing rocks back to Earth, the 2nd, 3rd, etc. Rover/MAV pairs could be quickly refocused on finding and bringing up only the best rocks for IRSU, without all that lag in figuring which ones are good.Except that an orbital lab will not have the capability of an earth based lab, and to improve on the basic capabilities on something on the surface would need to develop a whole range of handling equipment from scratch.Yes, plus introducing the possibility of contamination of the samples. The scientists back on Earth are going to insist that after the samples are sealed, nobody messes with them until they are back in a proper lab on Earth.A number of years ago somebody did a study of a Mars sample return lab on an Earth space station (you can probably find it on the net). The theory was that analyzing the samples in space allowed you to reduce risk to humans--if you opened a Mars sample and people started turning into brain-eating zombies, they'd only eat their fellow crewmembers and not, say, the population of California.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/27/2016 01:51 amA number of years ago somebody did a study of a Mars sample return lab on an Earth space station (you can probably find it on the net). The theory was that analyzing the samples in space allowed you to reduce risk to humans--if you opened a Mars sample and people started turning into brain-eating zombies, they'd only eat their fellow crewmembers and not, say, the population of California. http://www.wired.com/2012/07/the-antaeus-orbiting-quarantine-facility-1978/
A number of years ago somebody did a study of a Mars sample return lab on an Earth space station (you can probably find it on the net). The theory was that analyzing the samples in space allowed you to reduce risk to humans--if you opened a Mars sample and people started turning into brain-eating zombies, they'd only eat their fellow crewmembers and not, say, the population of California.
Quote from: Archibald on 05/29/2016 07:32 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 05/27/2016 01:51 amA number of years ago somebody did a study of a Mars sample return lab on an Earth space station (you can probably find it on the net). The theory was that analyzing the samples in space allowed you to reduce risk to humans--if you opened a Mars sample and people started turning into brain-eating zombies, they'd only eat their fellow crewmembers and not, say, the population of California. http://www.wired.com/2012/07/the-antaeus-orbiting-quarantine-facility-1978/I actually remember seeing that thing in "Race to Mars" in the section concerning contamination and Martian germs. Wouldn't be a bad design for a modern space station if you just replace the lab modules with Bigelow ones nowadays. Of course, assuming they find any Martian germs at all, they're pretty sure they'd die in Earth's atmosphere rather than take over.
Remarkable lack of details.
Quote from: Oli on 05/29/2016 11:45 pmRemarkable lack of details.What do you expect? It's a story about a conference presentation. We don't have the abstract, let alone a full length paper or report. The video of presentation is on line somewhere.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/30/2016 05:08 amQuote from: Oli on 05/29/2016 11:45 pmRemarkable lack of details.What do you expect? It's a story about a conference presentation. We don't have the abstract, let alone a full length paper or report. The video of presentation is on line somewhere.Just based on the visuals, I wonder about committing to metallic habitats for use in Mars orbit because of their tendency to generate bremsstrahlung radiation when irradiated. May be better to see BEAMs results first, and consider composite construction with polymer and borated polymer shields (for neutrons) - a proven COTS shielding tech.