We can sit back and say "I told you so" when all the cash gets wasted on something of no importance, because that is all that is going to happen. As opposed to other posters, I strongly believe it was the Democrats, and not the Republicans who screwed up NASA. Sadly, at this point it doesn't really matter.
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
This article, and the other suggested missions on the "flexible path" idea are great ideas, on paper. But they are nothing but paper, that is all they will ever be, and that is what is so discouraging. Dollars to donuts NASA has stacks and stacks of these kind of missions in an archive somewhere, where generations of people from vonBraun on have dreamed and thought and planned and hoped that something good could happen in space. But it is not going to happen. None of this stuff is going to happen, so let's just use the ISS well until 2020, imperfect as it is. Then let's watch the next "green jobs" type fad or the next designer disease or some other cause suck up all the time and cash which could have been used to do something real for all humanity.
Quote from: kraisee on 01/10/2010 07:55 pmA "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"Ross.My suggestion would be a 'duplicate' Hubble.1) We already built one. I think the second mirror is gone now, but it shouldn't be too hard to build a new one (the one with the correct curvature that is...) 2) We already have all the specs for the instruments, so build a second set, or if possible & available, use any of Hubble's ground spares.3) It can use all the existing ground systems for Hubble, so we may only need a few extra ground personnel.4) If Hubble finally does come to pass, since the systems are identical, there is no learning curve, and the people can transition seamlessly to the new one(s).I would say 1/3 the cost of Hubble, whatever that was, since the engineering is already done.
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"Ross.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Correct.kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.Analyst
NASA needs HSF to get political support. NASA needs an impressive BFR because, lets just face it, a Shuttle launch or a Saturn V launch is much more impressive and looks better on TV than a Delta launch...
Quote from: Analyst on 01/11/2010 07:40 amCorrect.kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.AnalystYeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.Come on.
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
Quote from: William Barton on 01/11/2010 11:44 amScientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).I trust this is sarcasm.The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures.
Quote from: William Barton on 01/10/2010 08:01 pmIf I were going to pick unmanned "filler missions" for the HLLV, I'd want things like JIMO back. Then the Titan Airship. The Herschel Uranus Orbiter. The Triton Lander. Etc. I haven't been happy since Voyager-Mars was downsized to Viking and TOPS was downsized to (repurposed name) Voyager. The idea of using Saturn V to drop LM-sized landers on Mars has never quite slipped out of my dreams...Oh yes. I'd love to see those, too. Heck, I'd be happy if the HSF budget were slashed, as long as the money was then transferred to UMSF missions like this (which, ofc, isn't the way the real world works).
If I were going to pick unmanned "filler missions" for the HLLV, I'd want things like JIMO back. Then the Titan Airship. The Herschel Uranus Orbiter. The Triton Lander. Etc. I haven't been happy since Voyager-Mars was downsized to Viking and TOPS was downsized to (repurposed name) Voyager. The idea of using Saturn V to drop LM-sized landers on Mars has never quite slipped out of my dreams...