Author Topic: Exploration concepts and principles?  (Read 99914 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #80 on: 06/09/2013 03:16 pm »
How do you get the depicted moment arm with a tether? Rigid boom is required, otherwise the comet cow just winds up your tether around itself like a ball of yarn. And if cow's rotation axis points towards your spacecraft?

Whoah!  Such artistry!  I am... well... cowed.

Cereally, the problem is tumbling.  In the released video of the "official" heist, they illustrate the bag slowly rotating, matching the rotation of the rock.  In one plane.  Perpendicular to the orbit vector.  They make it look as easy as "2001", when the shuttle approaches the ring station.  They forgot to play "Blue Danube";  the ring station is cooperatively rotating in essentially one plane at one rpm.  The rock is tumbling, an issue which they gloss over.

When I mention a "lazy" asteroid, it is one that tumbles in as few planes as possible, at a leisurely rate.  The Ziltoid fleet is to be tasked with finding that rock.  From a Drake equation standpoint, it seems to be doable.  There are over a hundred million "unique" conference table sized asteroids, of which, no doubt, there are many, many, many of them which slowly tumble, and are on a timely path which very nearly already puts them in a safe lunar DRO.

BTW: The Keck paper wisely does not include the costs of finding that rock, nor the timeliness of that search.  Obviously, NASA's expected funding stability over the next two decades is a given, so the Keck cost and schedule assumptions are already verified.  Clearly, due to the vast number of unique candidates, they appear to be already planning on de-spinning only, not de-tumbling.

But anyhow, In my first sketch, mentioned in passing, but not detailed by even my liberal standards, the net closure thingy is adjustable.  It can grab the cow lightly or tightly, to avoid the yo-yo effect you so ably illustrate.

I'm thinking that it's a one piece cow, not an aggregate of dessicated cow poop.  OTOH, were the net tightly woven it might be expected to grab an aggregate based cow.  In some ways, this would make de-tumbling easier, assuming adequate net strength, because of the internal friction of the aggregate, and the jostling and rubbing together of the pieces.  But I haven't modeled on that assumption.

The net at first, must be able to accomodate the abrasion of the rock twirling around in it.  Not mentioned, but briefly considered in the shadows of my mind, is the need for the S/C to engage in some interseting gyrating prox op maneuvers, as it maneuvers around the cow, attempting to mimic the tumble.

Not shown in my sketches are the PV panels which power the Hall thrusters.  I will have to address this in another sketch, I'm afraid.  The panels will also have to be gimballed to aim at the sun, while the S/C makes its gyrations around the cow.

The Keck Kids pretend to have already solved this problem by folding the PV panels during the time period of de-tumbling.  Not clear in their paper, is where the power comes from to expel the necessary xenon to detumble the rock, while the panels are folded.  The mission limits the "rotation" of the lazy rock to one rotation every ten minutes.  They do suggest a Stewart platform, however.

The lazy cow specification works to the advantage of the net-based capture approach, particularly regarding tether length, which I'm tentatively thinking would only be 1000 yards, not 1000 meters.  Another cost savings.  Ahem. 

May we have the next slide, please?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #81 on: 06/09/2013 03:26 pm »
I'm thinking the time required to stop tumbling will be too short. You're going to have to approach with such a slow velocity and angular velocity in order to prevent an impact.  It will be better to just land on the thing/cow.

First, a couple of corrections:  You did spell "ocho" correctly, but you misspelled "Junio".  And after the year 2013, you forgot to put the notation ARSH.

Second, a technical note:  You appear to have used a "3 hole standard" tripartite black hole generator, gracing the left hand vertical edge of your sketch.  Out of curiosity, what hardware are you using?  I am using an Acco "Mutual 27", which is capable of manufacturing seven or three hole standard black holes.

Third, it's hard to argue against your tentative conclusion of reducing the expected S/C properties to zero.  Could you run the numbers again, I would ask.  If you can get them into the negative range, the mission would pay for itself.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #82 on: 06/10/2013 07:14 am »
Ok.

So your lasso is now in preliminary design.  Sailed thru a first level gauntlet of technical review...

Without tripping up anything too proprietary... Lets just assume you can use mountain climbing equipment for the tether.

Off the shelf kernmantle rope is used for mountain climbing.  It has a nylon core that is protected by a schmancy colored exterior (great for protecting the structure from the elements... especially all of the cow manure)

Linear mass runs you 66 grams per meter with a 10 mm diameter.  Load capability is 27 kN (or 6000 pounds if you prefer to use the Queen's units).

A 1 kilometer long tether will give you 66 kg of rope for one line.  How many lines will you need to catch the cow?  If you use six, then there is a possibility of some music playing like some kind of an astroguitar or something.   Blues rothers played Rawhide in the key of G.

If you have too many ropes, there is a chance you an arrange the S/C and cow to make orbiting rope patterns like the finger string game Cat's Cradle.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #83 on: 06/12/2013 08:33 pm »
Ok... So the OP regards the thoughts and aspirations of sustained BEO missions.  Let's put our focus on some more history.  This is going to be good!

***
Chapter 1:
1903:  Wright Brothers invent the airplane
1903-1914:  United States loses leadership to Europe with the use of aircraft during WWI.
1915:  Congress approves a bill to establish a national advisory committee of aeronautics consisting of 12 members and one employee.  Organization name is NACA.  Objective:  catch up to Europe with aircraft.
..late-1940s:  Technology catch up in aircraft is accomplished.
****
Chapter 2:
1957:  Sputnik is orbiting over the Earth
1958:  Congress passes the National Aeronatics and Space Act to start NASA.
..late 60s-early 70s:  Men walk on the moon, the technology catch up is accomplished.
***

Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

Reference:
http://history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html

Don't push those analogies TOO far now, they break easily :)

While NACA started with one employee it quickly grew to encompase several dozen research laboratories as well as including commercial and university research as well.

NASA started OUT pretty big because it was thought that an "Agency" would have much more clout and ability to work out interpersonal and inter-office issues more easily.

We took flight crews "beyond Earth Orbit" for specific reasons tied to a specific program and have never done so since because there is no political or public will to do so and no definable "need" to do so. Making another "agency" won't help with the core issue which is lack of general support for human space activity specifically.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #84 on: 06/12/2013 09:00 pm »
The problem is more than that, the problem is even if the mass media "got-onboard" the general public is still going to dismiss the idea of a major human presence in space unless and until it becomes significantly relevent to the daily life of the avererage person.

This is the part where I get on my knees and beg to disagree.
Please don't its un-dignified and makes my neck hurt from looking down to much :)

Quote
The general public has been instructed to mock the idea by the MSM, plain and simple.  They are called sheople for a good reason.  The MSM must do as it is instructed.
The general public does in fact NOT "mock" human space flight in general and only "mock" plans and dreams for colonization or settelment of outers space because they see no benifit or need for doing so at this time. This is "egged" on by MSM but for the same reason that they don't see any benifit or need either.

The general public is "excited" by pictures brought home by space probes and the exotic sights of far of worlds, galaxies and stars but those images do no directly effect or influance their daily lives so there is little incentive to make space exploration (and especially human exploration) a priority. When asked people are always eager to "support" manned space flight and exploration but when pressed can not find reasonable justifications for expanding what is being done or doing large and expensive programs to "settle" space. It is just not something that effects their daily lives and priorities. This is the major issue involved.

They are called "sheeple" mostly by folks who do not understand general motivational and priority hierarchy needs and instead try to apply THEIR thinking to the mass when their "thinking" is not "main-stream" and/or able to influance the majority population. "Space cadets" are a very minor portion of the world population and need to understand and work WITH this fact rather than assuming that the majority of people are simply to stupid to "get-it".

Quote
Look at the arguments on this forum how the "real" science is in the heist, and how we've been to the Moon already, and there's no scientific "there" there.  The rabbit hole's not all that deep.  It's just that the rabbits have been ritalined into submission.
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it. Simply put? NASA has no funding or political support from ANYONE to go back to the Moon so they have written it off as part of their planning. Totally rational given the circumstances. An asteroid rendevous was suggested as a political goal but we don't have the capability to pull it off. So when someone suggest bringing an asteroid to us instead and in doing so we can actually ramp up and test out some capability enhancing hardware why NOT jump at the chance? Since it has to wait on the politically "mandated" HLV and manned vehicle anyway it won't hurt to plan the operation and in fact it might help with some commercial aspects of space flight which have taken a bunch of its of late due to politics.

Going back to the Moon is a POLITICAL argument and it will only be solved with a political consensus. One that has for the past 40+ years been distinctly LACKING at all levels. Going back to the Moon in a meaningful way and planning a permanent presence or settlement is simply not a political consideration and won't be unless and until it becomes something a large segment of the population want. Without that backing we'll just go back to repeating a somewhat expanded Apollo program and then end up right back where we stared... Again.

Quote
The only idea that works is the honest idea of colonization, starting with tourism, open to the general public, and paid for by the general public.
Being "honest" the idea of colonization or settlement can only become reality when and if the public in general feels an ability and need to "buy" into such a program. Tourism is limited and so far as I've seen has histoically not been able to 'bootstrap" colonization, it CAN increase public awareness though and it is possible it COULD lead to utilizations of space and or outer space resources that CAN instigate a public support campaign but nothing I've seen so far points to tourism being anything more than simple, one-off, limited, "experiance" trips which will not open the types of exploitatioin that is needed to gain massive public buy in. I'd love to be wrong but so far it just isn't being talked about or advocated within the tourism community.

Quote
The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.
Designed by whom? The major issue with tourism is the hardware isn't available and especially problematical is that fact that the "tourism" ideas so far have been significantly limited both by the lack of hardware and the lack or interest in "tourism-interests" in paying to GET the needed hardware and capability in place.

If you or anyone else has a "pragmatic" tourism discussion that leads to colonization I'd love to hear/read it because the reality is there isn't anyone actually doing so at the moment.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #85 on: 06/12/2013 09:09 pm »
On tumbling control, I don't know but we spent quite a bit of time, money and effort on studies between 1970 and the late 80s on various methods of using "equipment" aboard the Shuttle to "de-tumble" a space station in case of an accident so it could dock and rescue the crew. That seems a good place to start...

(That is of course if it hasn't all been "removed" in the name of national security :) )

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #86 on: 06/13/2013 02:22 pm »
Ok.

So your lasso is now in preliminary design.  Sailed thru a first level gauntlet of technical review... 

Glad you asked!

A: Today's notion is that there is a hexagonal capture mechanism at the end of the net.  In order to put a hex on a cow, the hex needs to be strong and it needs to be able to fly in formation, pulling the net behind it.  The tether can be simply coiled, and will readily uncoil. Sorry, don't care about the mass or its manufacturer's specification at the moment.  Such a tether and such a net can be designed for the application.  As to mass, we have 18 tons to play with, the capacity of an Atlas 551 to LEO.

B: There are two reasons to have the hex fly in formation.  One, to effect the lasso.  Two, to release it should there be tumbling issues.

The bag is better than the net in that it simply needs to be reliably deployed around the cow, and doesn't need the complexity of flying in formation.

I point out that technology development is always a point of these sorts of unmanned missions.  There is a choice in which technology should be developed.  In my view, the lasso/net approach is more scalable than the bag approach.

However, the bag does serve the well known NASA predilection for one-off designs, which serves the well known political principle of always rising pork prices.  There are never, by design, cost reductions in pork projects.  Live and don't learn is the principle at hand.

In addition, there is the stated political directive from the President himself:  Thou shalt only do it once.  There will never be another asteroid mission after the current one.  Of course, I think that the allure of people in space is exactly the opposite of that parochial viewpoint, but hey.

In the next century, if we're allowed off planet, we might be able to manufacture O-Neil cylinders in the vicinity of the belt, mining larger asteroids, and leaving a trail of powder in the wake.  There will have to be a better way to grab rocks.

C: Side view of the hex fleet surrounding the cow.

D: The hex must be very strong; the connecting tabls must also be strong and easily latched and unlatched.  Not shown are the re-fillable hydrazine tanks used to fuel the notional thrusters in the illustration.

Later, I'll re-purpose my Unpressurized Deployable Hanger (R) (UDH (R)), for purposes of cow capture.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #87 on: 06/13/2013 02:36 pm »
The general public does in fact NOT "mock" human space flight in general and only "mock" plans and dreams for colonization or settelment of outers space because they see no benifit or need for doing so at this time. This is "egged" on by MSM...

The sheople do not care all that much about HSF in LEO.  But the meme that even a lunar base is a type of colony is the meme that the MSM promulgates.  Plus the MSM gets completely behind the President, who prononces that BTDT is the only issue regarding HSF that should be strictly followed.

Quote from: Randy
They are called "sheeple" mostly by folks who do not understand general motivational and priority hierarchy needs and instead try to apply THEIR thinking to the mass when their "thinking" is not "main-stream" and/or able to influance the majority population. "Space cadets" are a very minor portion of the world population and need to understand and work WITH this fact rather than assuming that the majority of people are simply to stupid to "get-it".

Spelling is at least one strong point of mine.

They are called sheople.

Even so, yur resoning is incomplet. The do not beleve anythin but whut they are told 2 buleve. That why the r sheep. HSF no big deel.

Quote from: Randy
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it.

I do agree that they like to argue for the sake of argument, and not for the sake of accomplishment.

Quote from: JF
The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.

Quote from: Randy
Designed by whom? ...

Bigelow and SpaceX and others have designed hardware.  You know this.

Quote from: Randy
If you or anyone else has a "pragmatic" tourism discussion that leads to colonization I'd love to hear/read it because the reality is there isn't anyone actually doing so at the moment.

We know about that reality. You also know about the plethora of discussions even on this site about tourism.

Not at all clear where you stand. 

You like the heist, I assume?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #88 on: 06/14/2013 03:02 am »
The general public does in fact NOT "mock" human space flight in general and only "mock" plans and dreams for colonization or settlement of outer space because they see no benefit or need for doing so at this time. This is "egged" on by MSM...

The sheople do not care all that much about HSF in LEO. But the meme that even a lunar base is a type of colony is the meme that the MSM promulgates. Plus the MSM gets completely behind the President, who pronounces that BTDT is the only issue regarding HSF that should be strictly followed.
People do not care at all about HSF in LEO, that was a "yawn" thing back in the early 60s. There is actually a general understanding both inside MSM and the general population that a Lunar Base does NOT equal a colony, nor does it necessarily lead to settlement of any type. The problem is that NASA HAS "BTDT" and the fact that the major "advocates" of a return-to-the-moon (non-politicians) ARE "selling" it as the first step in colonization or settlement. The general public has no "reason" to buy into such a scheme nor are they willing to pay for it. Any argument explaining more short/long-term reasoning, (ISRU for expanded space flight, extended science and looking for lunar applications, etc) gets lost in the noise.

The MSM gets just as excited as anyone else when "New Space" does something new. There has been about as much negative press about the asteroid mission and/or capture as positive, both tend to die down quickly because nothing is being done in any case. People in general get excited with the pictures from Mars and other various space probes but they are pretty bored with anything like LEO and the ISS. Space-X and Orbital are making some headlines now but once it becomes "routine" it will fade into the background again.

Again the major problem is that the public have NO "buy-in" to make space or HSF "worth" being a priority for them.
Quote
Quote from: Randy
They are called "sheeple" mostly by folks who do not understand general motivational and priority hierarchy needs and instead try to apply THEIR thinking to the mass when their "thinking" is not "main-stream" and/or able to influence the majority population. "Space cadets" are a very minor portion of the world population and need to understand and work WITH this fact rather than assuming that the majority of people are simply to stupid to "get-it".

Spelling is at least one strong point of mine.

They are called sheople.
You are correct I apologize and stand corrected.
Quote
Even so, yur resoning is incomplet. The do not beleve anythin but whut they are told 2 buleve. That why the r sheep. HSF no big deel.
No my reasoning is quite complete, I understand it is much easier to believe that everything is simple and there is no such thing as complex social dynamics and that the majority of people who don't happen to agree with ones point of view are brain dead. However the truth is much more complex and in order to have any chance of effecting change one must face it squarely and admit it or you have already failed before you begin.

The MAJORITY of people do not see a "reason" or "need" for colonization or settlement in space or any of the planets or moons. Without such a "reason" that impacts their daily lives and makes such efforts a "priority" of some type in their decision making process there will never be any large scale support for such endeavors. Find a 'reason' and take that argument before the people and you will change their minds. Cling to the incorrect notion that everyone but "you" are "sheople" and nothing will ever change. Self fulfilling prophecy at work.


Quote from: Randy
The "argument" is more often than not simply being rehashed and redefined as needed to CONTINUE to argue about it.
Quote
I do agree that they like to argue for the sake of argument, and not for the sake of accomplishment.

That's pretty much the endemic problem with "space advocacy" in general in that everyone has a "plan" that is sure-fire and as long as anyone proposes any OTHER plan everyone works to make sure "they" fail to achieve anything. Works great for the folks who don't WANT anything accomplished. They sit back and pick and choose sound bytes, nod their heads and agree on cue and then shrug their shoulders because they can't find any "consensus" to follow.

Accomplishing something would take some "compromise" and cooperation, give and take on both sides but that seems to be a forgotten concept. I'm probably just as guilty as anyone else because I "know" what needs to be done but am in a position where it is difficult at best to FIND a ... (Ok, that came out as "compromising position" which is ENTIRELY not where I was planning on going with that statement... )

Lets just say that compromise is difficult when you are advocating we go "back" to simply getting to orbit often and cheaply in general while advocating that NASA get OUT of the surface-to-orbit business entirely and get planning on going "out" there instead.
(Better I think...)
Quote
Quote from: JF
The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.

Quote from: Randy
Designed by whom? ...

Bigelow and SpaceX and others have designed hardware. You know this.
Ahh yes but the way it was written made it seem as though the "endless discussion" was what had been "designed" which is what I wanted to clarify. Thanks :)

Quote
Quote from: Randy
If you or anyone else has a "pragmatic" tourism discussion that leads to colonization I'd love to hear/read it because the reality is there isn't anyone actually doing so at the moment.

We know about that reality. You also know about the plethora of discussions even on this site about tourism.

Not at all clear where you stand.
The "reality" is the main issue I think as of yet the discussion has been very "hopeful" rather than "pragmatic" for the most part. There have been many and varied discussion on these forums among others and there is, still no 'consensus' on the actual practicality of space tourism to be self funding let alone bootstrap space colonization.

My opinion is that the assumption must be made that access price and availability must be drastically cut for the former and increased for the latter in order for "tourism" to become self funding. This in turn will open up new areas of research and development as the economics of space access become more viable for such areas and in turn will increase public and private interest and investment.

But hauling millionaires back and forth will not do the job and will not bring the needed benefits and until "tourism" is opened to a large segment of the population in both price and availability it is going to only be a "niche" business at best.

The caveat here is this is something that Government in general and NASA specifically can not do because of a lack of incentive and motivation to reduce the cost of access to space. As long as a few dozen government employees are going back and forth a year there is no reason for the government to encourage savings.

Worse I think is that for Orbital Tourism to be successful there will be a need for a "destination" fitted and catering to tourists. This will not be and cannot be the ISS and must be a separate destination aimed specifically at the tourist/non-government market. The ISS is currently the "only" destination in LEO and being under government control their needs will always take precedent over commercial/private concerns. Bigelow has always said they are NOT going for the tourism market but are looking to currently non-space capable "government" as customers.

This is actually a good business decision because tourist would not put up with or pay the needed monies for what Bigelow is offering. (It's worse than a summer cabin rental because not only do you have to bring everything you need live and work for the stay but you have to do all your own maintenance and up keep yourself. That's NOT an incentive for tourists)

Space-X is looking at a similar situation and will pretty much depend on Bigelow or someone else putting up the "station" and then buying a "servicing/taxi" contract from them. (There is of course the possibility that Elon will decide to put his "own" station up be it a Bigelow module or someone else but I'm not sure he has THAT much of a cash flow and he will end up with the same "problem" of attracting customers)

There is on the other hand some "hope" that DragonLab can get some traction in the commercial sector. A huge issue with the ISS for experimental research is the fact that it's manned and in such a low orbit. People moving around and thrust pushes tend to ruin a lot of experiments far short of their optimum goal. This has limited the amount of research and development capability that can be explored on the ISS and has caused several experiments to be postponed or shut down until another solution is available. Similarly a small "Genesis" type man-tended module could be orbited and outfitted for automated research with similar values.

Again though, the main driver is going to be cost and availability of access. The more available and cost effective access to orbit is the more there will be incentive to use it and the more it will impact the daily lives of the population.

I don't know if that helps "clarify" my position, but feel free to ask more specific questions if you want :)

Quote
You like the heist, I assume?
I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have. However I would RATHER that it wasn't an "either/or" thing and that NASA was also building LEO fuel depots and a reusable interplanetary ship in orbit and not depending entirely on the SLS/Orion combination to be the "end-all/be-all" space transportation system that it is ending up being.

NASA does not in my opinion actually NEED a vehicle such as Orion. (I would normally argue that they could do without the SLS but that's a political argument I can't actually touch, besides an HLV can be handy :)) Orion is "designed" around direct flights "to" BLEO and back and that's not what I see as being "needed" by NASA or the US-HSF program. We should have moved beyond the direct out-and-back method decades ago with the Shuttle. Orbital assembly is not easy but then again we haven't really been working to MAKE it easier and less costly. Again, government programs and agencies don't have an "incentive" to do so.

Once astronauts are in LEO they should be transferring to dedicated space ships for operations, not re-doing Apollo on every flight. We had "good" reasons for doing things the way we did for Apollo as there wasn't any "in-space-infrastructure" to be used but we HAVE moved on since then. The ISS may not be a "perfect" space station but at least it IS one and we should use it AS one. (My preference would be to have a couple more at least, smaller and in different orbits for different needs but, again that's not something that any government or agency has incentive to do)

Most of the arguments against NASA fully utilizing commercial cargo and crew fall into two categories; Those that think that NASA and only NASA should provide surface to orbit services and those that think that C3 is a "danger" to the SLS/Orion and should be shut down to save money for that program.

The first I have no hope of convincing or arguing with because their "stance" is one that obviously sees HSF as a government only proposition and that it should never be anything else but that. To the second I'd argue that C3 is only a "danger" to SLS as long as it is "assumed" that SLS/Orion will in the end be used for only servicing the ISS. Supposedly SLS/Orion is being designed to support BLEO operations and therefore will never "compete" with C3 for ISS servicing and the politicians that argue that the two ARE competing are so full of feces their eyes are brown...

I'd also point out that we are currently paying the Russians to send out astronauts into space and far fewer than C3 plans on servicing and "we" and those in Washington do not seem to have any issues with THAT "commercial" service. (And considering the government has mandated that neither the DoD nor any agency OTHER than NASA procure services or goods from a NON-AMERICAN company if at all possible pretty much blows most of the "government" arguments out of the water from the start)

Finally I'd argue that NASA NEEDS to get out of the Earth-to-LEO business because it has SO "BTDT" by a huge margin more than it has with the Moon. There is simply no reason other than politics for NASA to continue to "reserve" the need to simply put astronauts into space. Yes the current "market" for commercial orbital services consists of "NASA" itself but this is somewhat similar to the original satellite market being that the DoD and government were the "sole" market at first.

And even though there is no government "incentive" to ever suppose that HSF will be anything BUT government owned and operated the very possibility that there can and will be possible incentives and motivations to allow such in the future. Enough that opposition makes little sense IF one can get past the current mental block that HSF equal Government space flight and nothing else.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #89 on: 06/14/2013 03:02 pm »
Quote from: JF
You like the heist, I assume?

I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have.

So you like the heist.  I don't.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #90 on: 06/14/2013 09:52 pm »
I want Mars but I'll accept that the rocket is too early and the technology isn't going to be developed.

The Obama plan fell flat and the money went to SLS/Orion.

SLS shouldn't even have been designed before 2015.

The advances in technology NASA could have made by now with the money spent on design cycles boggles the mind.

The best use of this technology is to visit the Lunar surface.

The problem with anything related to asteroids is that NASA doesn't want to spend the money on detection. There's no way they'd be willing to send a $3b ARM spacecraft out blind. That's just crazy talk. The time taken to detect then retrieve will be immense. Saying they can have the rock by EM-2 is very optimistic even with the snail pace of SLS development. SLS/Orion can't just sit around doing nothing or flying to Lunar orbit and back, that's a poor return on investment.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #91 on: 06/20/2013 03:28 pm »
Quote from: JF
You like the heist, I assume?

I "like" anything that builds a capability we don't already have.

So you like the heist.  I don't.
Let's be clear... I "like" the capability the "heist" entails, I however do NOT like the fact that the majority of HSF for the next several years is aimed at simply "waiting" for an automated system to bring back an asteroid so we can "visit" is because we don't have the infrastructure or capability to go outside Cis-Lunar space on manned missions. I don't like that we are "skipping" over returning to the Moon because we don't have the infrastructure and capability to support more frequent "Missions" than once every three years... Maybe...

I most definatly do not 'like' the fact that American HSF is being held back by short-sighted politics and a lack of cohesion within what should be the spaceflight advocate "community" which prefers in-fighting and back-stabbing to getting anything actually "done" and I especially do not "like" the fact that it is most likely going to be more than a half-a-century before humans once again set foot on a new world, let alone the one we set foot on then.

In fact it could be said that I in fact HATE the current "status" along with "plans" for American HSF in that other than a very few ideas which actually built up incrimental capability with an eye towards future goals and missions, everything has been forced to be focused on what we "can" do with what we have. I want the capability to go anywhere, anytime we want. And we COULD do that given the right focus and funding but neither of those is likely given the consistant lack of guidance available to, or given to those actually in charge of American HSF.

And most annoying is this seems to be perfectly acceptable to those in charge because it means they like those "options" and would rather not have any others. The fact that this simply keeps the "community" divided and unable to support ANYTHING in a coherent manner is a bonus to this.

I suppose not that it matters at this point since it would seem the "heist" has been canceled due to having its funding not approved. On the other hand I don't see funding for anything else OTHER than SLS/Orion as probably coming through either.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #92 on: 06/20/2013 03:32 pm »
And most annoying is this seems to be perfectly acceptable to those in charge because it means they like those "options" and would rather not have any others. The fact that this simply keeps the "community" divided and unable to support ANYTHING in a coherent manner is a bonus to this.

Two theories:  Deliberately or incompetently kept on planet.  Government only.  Gotta tentative take on that? 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #93 on: 06/23/2013 11:27 pm »
#asteroidheist

Today's thinking on establishing a graphic framework to present prox ops on the heist.  Previous sketch found at:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31777.msg1063444#msg1063444
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #94 on: 07/03/2013 05:48 am »
In full belief of the Cow catching concept. 

If NASA were to implement missions with less specificity, perhaps they could stir more interest?

Rather than going to a specific object (asteroid, moon, mars) perhaps the concept of missions to determine answers to questions would be more appropriate.

So rather than having Apollo as a mission to the moon, what we really had was over fifty years to "demonstrate human exploration in space".  Mission accomplished (now we have astronauts riding Russian launchers... But the ISS will be decomissioned eventually.).

Next mission is to "demonstrate robotic exploration".  Mission is soon to be accomplished... (New Horizons will be the end cap in the mission in a few years).

So if this pardigm continues, the mission to "discover life in space" or "determine the origin of life" might be subsequent objective. 

What other missions of great paradigms are there?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #95 on: 07/25/2013 06:21 pm »
Sorry John I actually didn't see this reply until now :)

And most annoying is this seems to be perfectly acceptable to those in charge because it means they like those "options" and would rather not have any others. The fact that this simply keeps the "community" divided and unable to support ANYTHING in a coherent manner is a bonus to this.

Two theories:  Deliberately or incompetently kept on planet.  Government only.  Gotta tentative take on that? 
My "tentative" take is "incompetently" because there's no real "reason" to keep Americans chained to this planet. Reality is quite clear that currently there isn't a damn thing "out-there" worth the time, effort, or money to go out and get. I characterize the effort as “incompetent” simply because it is not anything “personal” or a specific “agenda” but more the side-effects of the political process and the lack of any significant “markets” that could be exploited by private enterprise. With no general “incentive” to go out there and work, and live the various “reasons” for a government manned space program let alone a civilian one are very, very flimsy at best.

Yet the "truth" is simply that the only GOOD reason for manned space flight is to learn to live and work in space in preparation for permanently inhabiting that environment. If you read the SAA's for the last couple of decades the WORDING clearly points to that being supposedly understood by the Government. Yet the wording is not backed up by political support or action. There is no actual incentive, no interest, or support for building a permanent manned space effort. “Space” is of little interest to politicians and only sparks occasional spikes in interest with the general public. “Space Colonization” still has far too much of a “giggle-factor” attached to it to be taken seriously.

So “Manned Space Flight” is simply seen as an extension of what economic and political factors it influences here on Earth and no thought is given beyond that to it for the most part. The occasional “political” squabble over territory, money, or “power” drives the majority of decisions with little or no thought or regard as to the “end” goal or long term effect. The thought process that is endemic to the current situation regards Manned Space Flight is simple: HSF both BEGINS and ENDS on Earth, therefore anything that requires resources and money to be spent for “off-Earth” equipment, infrastructure, or support is very difficult to justify. ISRU while it could save money and increase productivity of manned missions beyond LEO is by this thought process of little value because it ends up building and deploying equipment that in the end will simply be abandoned because there is no thought towards manned presence in “space” as being anything permanent. Again “Earth” is the FINAL destination of all efforts under the “logic” assumed here.

The ISS is in fact a very good example of this. It was not designed to be or ever intended to be “permanent” and in fact has already been “extended” beyond its original end-of-operations date. The fact that Congress has specifically extended its “lifetime” and also declared it a “National Laboratory” is very much proof that they do not wish to “move-on” to anything else. They HAVE what they want and until and unless it catastrophically falls apart they will continue to insist it be used. And as long as every “mission” ends up with the people coming back to Earth this fits quite nicely into the “logic” of the moment.

That same “logic” dictates the on-again/off-again support for civil space efforts in that it doesn’t matter what “civilian” space does as much as how it affects the territory/money/power in ascendance at the moment. Which is why government “support” runs hot and cold with seemingly little consistency even from the same politician! There is not “long-term” view in this thought process only the very short term and THAT can and does change moment by moment.
It also clearly shows in the efforts to “politicize” and contrast efforts that SHOULD be seen logically as supporting rather than conflicting, (best example being the SLS-vs-Fuel Depots argument) because the very nature of the “conflict” is over Earth-based power struggles rather than discussion or thought to how or even if BOTH “sides” would affect the overall “goal” of a permanent human presence in space.

The ONLY way to change this situation is to find a way to fundamentally change the prevailing attitude and thought process on “space” into one more orientated towards supporting a true permanent presence of humans living and working, (and yes, being born, loving, dying and all the rest of the “normal” human  condition) in space.
Frankly that’s going to take a major effort AND a “breakthrough” in finding a politically and socially “sound” reason for politicians and the general public to change their current mind-set.

We currently have nothing to work with and it is going to take time, effort, money and resources to make those changes. Something “space” can’t be shown to provide currently and which is not very available on Earth.
I again point out that it probably will take something beyond a “simple” government or private program that will be willing and able to throw money down the rathole until something DOES come along to provide the motivation for change. Something with very long range vision and the commitment to put humans into space despite the economics and difficulty.

Any ideas of where to start the process?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #96 on: 07/31/2013 01:45 pm »
My "tentative" take is "incompetently" because there's no real "reason" to keep Americans chained to this planet.

Again, there is at least one good reason to "keep" people on planet.  Should an off-planet democratic republican government come to be, where the people are mostly highly intelligent, and able to live and manufacture space faring equipment, it would be seen as a threat to terrestrial governments.  Virtually all of the terrestrial governments depend upon large pools of semi-skilled, poorly educated labor forces for their very existence.

It would be a conflict between two vastly different civilizations.

Best not to let that happen.

Quote from: Randy
The occasional “political” squabble over territory, money, or “power” drives the majority of decisions with little or no thought or regard as to the “end” goal or long term effect.

A bit of a nit, in that it's not "occasional", it's "around the clock".

But still, the incompetence of greed is also a good reason, and is easily manipulated by powers behind the throne.  My problem, amongst many others, is that I cannot tell the difference, and the end result is the same for both explanations.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #97 on: 07/31/2013 01:46 pm »
Any ideas of where to start the process?

Oh yeah.  My PMP demo mission.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #98 on: 07/31/2013 01:49 pm »
In full belief of the Cow catching concept.

No question but that the principle of lasooing a cow is sound.  The questions are, when and how.  When, is much later in the HSF drama than is currently proposed.  And how, seems to me at least, to be with a net, not a bag.

I have started another sketch; will have to resist the posting on the policy pages, but it is hard for me, since there is so much bachelor of science being spouted on those threads.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #99 on: 08/02/2013 03:50 am »
Yes John, I think you and I have brought some attention and good fundamental technical truthiness to the asteroid cow catching craze.  Catching a cow is too simple.  Lori Garver wants NASA to go after something larger!!!

Holy multiple degrees of freedom Batman here we go!  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOO!

What could we possibaaaaly call something that is larger than a cow?

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36482nasa’s-garver-floats-idea-of-capturing-larger-asteroid#.UfsrhRYTvjA

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0