Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/15/2013 01:17 pmI still don’t feel this mission is worthy of risking astronauts as I’ve said before. If you want to shake down the spacecraft send it unmanned. If you want a “cool factor”, send Robonaut which will excite the techie- obsessed kids compared to a bunch of “greybeard Astros”...what about Gemini and all the several Apollos until 11? Two of them went all the way around the Moon, one almost touched down.There's a reason why we need to do this sort of mission. We can't do a 500-900 day mission right off the bat.And by following your logic, we may not have any human exploration at all.
I still don’t feel this mission is worthy of risking astronauts as I’ve said before. If you want to shake down the spacecraft send it unmanned. If you want a “cool factor”, send Robonaut which will excite the techie- obsessed kids compared to a bunch of “greybeard Astros”...
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/15/2013 03:59 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/15/2013 01:17 pmI still don’t feel this mission is worthy of risking astronauts as I’ve said before. If you want to shake down the spacecraft send it unmanned. If you want a “cool factor”, send Robonaut which will excite the techie- obsessed kids compared to a bunch of “greybeard Astros”...what about Gemini and all the several Apollos until 11? Two of them went all the way around the Moon, one almost touched down.There's a reason why we need to do this sort of mission. We can't do a 500-900 day mission right off the bat.And by following your logic, we may not have any human exploration at all.Chris, I’ve seen them all from the first Mercury with Shepard on board. We have surpassed the 1960’s level of automation exponentially and having humans in the loop is not a necessity as it once was. There are missions that I would “like” to have humans involved in. We just have to separate our “needs” from our “wants” rationally...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/15/2013 08:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/15/2013 03:59 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/15/2013 01:17 pmI still don’t feel this mission is worthy of risking astronauts as I’ve said before. If you want to shake down the spacecraft send it unmanned. If you want a “cool factor”, send Robonaut which will excite the techie- obsessed kids compared to a bunch of “greybeard Astros”...what about Gemini and all the several Apollos until 11? Two of them went all the way around the Moon, one almost touched down.There's a reason why we need to do this sort of mission. We can't do a 500-900 day mission right off the bat.And by following your logic, we may not have any human exploration at all.Chris, I’ve seen them all from the first Mercury with Shepard on board. We have surpassed the 1960’s level of automation exponentially and having humans in the loop is not a necessity as it once was. There are missions that I would “like” to have humans involved in. We just have to separate our “needs” from our “wants” rationally...I think human exploration of asteroids is just as rational as human exploration of the Moon.And besides, we're GOING to need a shakedown of the system before we go to Mars, even Mars orbit. When you change parameters by several orders of magnitude at a time, it's helpful to have something in between to catch the unknown unknowns before they kill you.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 09/12/2013 10:10 amPhobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!Patience, grasshopper! We'll need to do some envelope expansion before we go for the 500-900 day Phobos/Deimos missions. But we'll get there.
Phobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/12/2013 04:11 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 09/12/2013 10:10 amPhobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!Patience, grasshopper! We'll need to do some envelope expansion before we go for the 500-900 day Phobos/Deimos missions. But we'll get there. Instead of a Phobos/Deimos mission, would a simple Mars flyby be less onerous? That would be one hell of a shakedown cruise, data gathering and wonder-inspiring mission. How many days could a flyby be done if one wanted to minimize the travel time, within the payload capacity of two launches?
Quote from: EE Scott on 09/15/2013 09:59 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/12/2013 04:11 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 09/12/2013 10:10 amPhobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!Patience, grasshopper! We'll need to do some envelope expansion before we go for the 500-900 day Phobos/Deimos missions. But we'll get there. Instead of a Phobos/Deimos mission, would a simple Mars flyby be less onerous? That would be one hell of a shakedown cruise, data gathering and wonder-inspiring mission. How many days could a flyby be done if one wanted to minimize the travel time, within the payload capacity of two launches?Itd be less interesting, IMHO, and less science payoff.
That's a long bow to draw as it pertains to my previous post, but... (shrugs). I take it you have a different destination for manned space? My real preferences are (irrelevant?) the Lunar South Pole first, followed by humans on the Martian surface. But NEAS and Martian Moons would push the technical and budgetary envelope quite far enough for now. And 'leadership'? I think all sides would agree that at this moment in time - it's rather lacking...
I think human exploration of asteroids is just as rational as human exploration of the Moon.
And besides, we're GOING to need a shakedown of the system before we go to Mars, even Mars orbit. When you change parameters by several orders of magnitude at a time, it's helpful to have something in between to catch the unknown unknowns before they kill you.
The primary problem is lack of funds, not lack of mass. Why do people always get this reversed?
The article mentions*202 days to reach the asteroid,*14 day exploration period*153 days to return to earth.Those seem like hugely long travel times for a short exploration to me. How does this compare in risk and cost to a Phobos/Deimos lunar mission?