I think habitats are higher TRL than ISRU and there are people making stuff already.. BEAM is on ISS after all (not the same thing, I know) and there's already a proposal solicitation active with several proposers...So I vote ISRU and lander. Or if I have to pick only one, ISRU. It's the long pole in the tent, technically.
Quote from: Lar on 05/25/2016 01:05 amI think habitats are higher TRL than ISRU and there are people making stuff already.. BEAM is on ISS after all (not the same thing, I know) and there's already a proposal solicitation active with several proposers...So I vote ISRU and lander. Or if I have to pick only one, ISRU. It's the long pole in the tent, technically.ISRU without a lander? I appreciate the reasoning, and it's good reasoning, but it still seems backward somehow.
Leave landers to ULA and SpaceX.
One early mission could be to place several tons of solar cells and batteries near one of the poles. They can power rovers, habitats and ISRU equipment that arrives later.Solar panels are a useful item that can be made quickly, in bulk and relatively cheaply providing an existing design of chip is used. A cargo of solar panels is suitable for the first landing of a lander because if it crashes we simply make some more.A small rover made be needed to deploy the panels. For short timescales KISS the robot rover.
Quote from: Lar on 05/25/2016 01:29 amLeave landers to ULA and SpaceX.You mean Boeing, LM, ORB-ATK, NG, Spacex, etc. And, that is who NASA would contract anyways, just like Orion.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/25/2016 01:48 pmOne early mission could be to place several tons of solar cells and batteries near one of the poles. They can power rovers, habitats and ISRU equipment that arrives later.Solar panels are a useful item that can be made quickly, in bulk and relatively cheaply providing an existing design of chip is used. A cargo of solar panels is suitable for the first landing of a lander because if it crashes we simply make some more.A small rover made be needed to deploy the panels. For short timescales KISS the robot rover.A self contain lander with battery bank and solar panel sail/mast that can track sun is all you need for a power station. No assembly required. Prime landing sites will have >80% sunlight. A few kWs would support a couple of exploration rovers and Comms relay rover.
Quote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/25/2016 01:17 amQuote from: Lar on 05/25/2016 01:05 amI think habitats are higher TRL than ISRU and there are people making stuff already.. BEAM is on ISS after all (not the same thing, I know) and there's already a proposal solicitation active with several proposers...So I vote ISRU and lander. Or if I have to pick only one, ISRU. It's the long pole in the tent, technically.ISRU without a lander? I appreciate the reasoning, and it's good reasoning, but it still seems backward somehow.We're farther along on landers. Also, private enterprise will deliver landers if there's traffic to be had. And I trust NASA to do tech development more than I trust it to do vehicles. (c.f. SLS)If we do a lander first, with plans for ISRU next and then there are cuts, goodbye ISRU.. .then the worst outcome? we get flags and footprints, again. Been there, done that, we need exploitation, not exploration. And another round of F&F drains popular support.Leave landers to ULA and SpaceX.