If your going to spend 6 months going somewhere, go to mars. It has water, and atmosphere and gravity. bumping around an asteriod in nearly zero G is going to have lots of problems associate with it.
Quote Only that you can't go to Mars and come back in 6 months with current technology.a fly by and orbit of Mars in one year total its not that difficult i think..on iss and mir crew can live for that time ..
Only that you can't go to Mars and come back in 6 months with current technology.
a fly by and orbit of Mars in one year total its not that difficult i think..on iss and mir crew can live for that time ..
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?
“Apart from unique human-enabled science – including return of macroscopic samples and in situ conduct of subsurface active seismology – that could occur, human NEO missions offer two special benefits that support Flexible Path objectives:“They have the ‘lowest price of entry’ of any human exploration missions to natural bodies. Trip times range from a few months up to Mars-class, and thus can drive development and qualification of long-lived, deep-space human systems and propulsion. Yet they do not require landers, ascent vehicles, or full-up roving mobility systems or surface infrastructure.
Quote from: Nathan on 01/10/2010 05:13 amI choose Mars.Why choose Mars? What's this obsession with Mars? What's on Mars? We've sent several robotic probes to Mars and haven't found anything. Why go to Mars?
I choose Mars.
Quote from: Serafeim on 01/10/2010 01:35 pma fly by and orbit of Mars in one year total its not that difficult i think..on iss and mir crew can live for that time ..This is not comparable at all. The radiation as well as psychological difficulties of a Mars flight are orders of magnitude higher than ISS operations.Simply put, we have no experience at all in prolonged human beyond-LEO space operations. Apollo doesn't count, since no mission lasted longer than 2 weeks and went out of sight of Earth.So, if we actually want to do manned BEO exploration, we essentially have to start from scratch. And then, obviously, the best way forward is with small steps. Something along these lines:- manned lunar flyby (6 days)- manned lunar orbit (30 days), with the opportunity of a quick abort anytime- GEO construction site (60-70 days, quick abort possible)- NEO flight I (150 days)- NEO flight II (300 days)- Mars orbit / Phobos (basically NEO-like) flight (450 days)Timeframe: at least 25 years. If there's money for a lander, then we can also do some lunar landings somewhere in there, but that's not a priority (since it's "been there, done that" anyway). As for Mars landings... I think expecting any human footprint on Mars before the second half of this century is unrealistic. Besides, Mars won't run away, and, like I said, is of little relevance to us on Earth (unlike NEOs).
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.Whether this statement is true appears to be one of several "decision points" for the route forward.
Well, three prototypes for possible habs are in orbit right now.We call them space stations.
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.
Hard to get excited about the remote possibility of such a mission 15 years down the line. Way too long from now - we need to do more sooner.
Opposition class, chemical propulsion based Mars missions (flyby or short orbital) require about 450 days. 6 months = 180 days.
No reason for the Hab to be as expensive as Altair with its massive propulsion system. I do wonder however how Orion is going to move about since it depended on Altair for lunar orbit insertion. Anybody having some knowledge as to how they are planning to deal with that?
The basic idea is quite good in terms of both the NEO science itself and in building up a capacity for visiting Phobos and Deimos. For the people worrying so much about time scales, I think the almost 30 years of Shuttle operations prove you can sustain a single program for quite a long time. I see no difference if ISS ops gradually evolve in Flexible Path ops.No reason for the Hab to be as expensive as Altair with its massive propulsion system. I do wonder however how Orion is going to move about since it depended on Altair for lunar orbit insertion. Anybody having some knowledge as to how they are planning to deal with that?
To save time and prevent multi-posting, I'm going to post my responses here in one post.Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 01/10/2010 04:50 amBut 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.Well... Maybe and maybe not. That I leave in the hands of those who know more about the subject than I. FWIW, though, a Flexible Path hab/lab module wouldn't necessarily need a propulsion system of its own or the landing hardware and avionics. There may be some savings from that. Remember also that the hab module could possibly be utilised for many different missions including lunar orbiter, EML lab and even flyby missions for the inner planets. However, it is worth remembering that there will be mission equipment such as sensors for the encounter and surface experiment packages.Remember that an asteroid 'lander' is something of a misnomer. The Orion's RCS system will be able to handle the ascent on many NEOs, which have only theoretical levels of gravity. If anything, the engineering would be more like that of an orbit-to-orbit cargo tug which needs to dock with a large object that does not have a docking interface.It could end up cheaper.
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well. Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
To save time and prevent multi-posting, I'm going to post my responses here in one post.Quote from: Downix on 01/10/2010 04:47 amWell, three prototypes for possible habs are in orbit right now.We call them space stations.Three prototypes? I know of only two: The ISS and Bigelow's Genesis-II. Unless China has already launched Tiangong-1, that is.The ISS is really the wrong paradigm for a transit hab vehicle. I think that the Russian Salut-6-class (also used for Mir and ISS) is a good idea, as are the Transhab systems being developed by Bigelow. I understand that there are certain advantages to carbon composite hulls over metal hulls when dealing with high-energy radiation too.What would my idea solution be? Probably something not dissimilar to the BA-330 Nautilus. Alternately something based on the ATV with a wider semi-rigid composite hab cylinder and maybe an EVA airlock too.Just for the record, I know that Lockheed have been promoting an Orion/OrionLab combination with a 'cargo' Orion to act as a hab space for long-haul missions. I don't know how realistic that is.
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 01/10/2010 03:06 pmIf you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well. Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.I don't know if I would go for it, because I don't think it's needed. The hab module just needs to have many of the components of a pre-exisiting ISS module, much like Zvezda.
If your going to spend 6 months going somewhere, go to mars. It has water, and atmosphere and gravity. bumping around an asteriod in nearly zero G is going to have lots of problems associate with it.It be neat but not worth doing more than once, ever.