Author Topic: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study  (Read 10769 times)

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« on: 10/01/2010 08:30 pm »
This has been mentioned previously in discussion of the Senate bill, but the authorization bill which was just passed by the Senate and House contains the following text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:3:./temp/~c1112W9Mwn:e23714:
Quote
SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON HUMAN EXPLORATION OF SPACE.

(a) In General- In fiscal year 2012 the Administrator shall contract with the National Academies for a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight, using the goals set forth in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, the goals set forth in this Act, and goals set forth in any existing statement of space policy issued by the President.
(b) Elements- The review shall include--
(1) a broad spectrum of participation with representatives of a range of disciplines, backgrounds, and generations, including civil, commercial, international, scientific, and national security interests;
(2) input from NASA's international partner discussions and NASA's Human Exploration Framework Team;
(3) an examination of the relationship of national goals to foundational capabilities, robotic activities, technologies, and missions authorized by this Act;
(4) a review and prioritization of scientific, engineering, economic, and social science questions to be addressed by human space exploration to improve the overall human condition; and
(5) findings and recommendations for fiscal years 2014 through 2023.

It's still a couple years off, but I thought it'd be worthwhile to start some preliminary discussion of this. Am I correct in assessing that its purpose will essentially be to assess how different components of the Senate bill have been progressing? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that based on the study's assessment of progress (and potential problems) with commercial cargo/crew, SLS, technology development, robotic science, etc., the President and Congress will then use that to determine NASA's direction and exploration goals in FY2014 and beyond.

To get things started, who do you think should be a member of this committee? I googled a bit, and the National Academies has some info on their study process here: http://www.nationalacademies.org/studyprocess/index.html

Also, what do you think will be the most important things that happen between now and 2012 that will affect the committee's findings and recommendations?
« Last Edit: 10/01/2010 08:32 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #1 on: 10/01/2010 09:11 pm »
As far as I can tell, this is intended to be similar to the "Decadal Surveys" that the various parts of SMD perform every ten years. The astrophysics one just finished and is available here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12951 The planetary decadal survey is ongoing.

One aspect of the decadal survey process is a call for white papers within the community, so that proponents of certain targets or missions call publicly make their case. It's then up to the committee to make sense of all the suggestions and try to make a coherent plan. Along the way, they check in with the community at otherwise-scheduled conferences, to try to keep the process honest and open. The end result is then bundled up and sent to NASA and Congress. The findings of the study are not legally binding, so NASA doesn't have to follow them, but they don't, they'll get hounded by certain congressmen if they don't...
« Last Edit: 10/01/2010 09:11 pm by simonbp »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #2 on: 10/03/2010 03:53 pm »
(Responding again, as a way of bumping the thread.)

One of the major things that can happen between now and the start of the Report is the discovery of a NEO that is reachable by humans before 2020. At the moment, we just have 1999 AO10 in 2025, which is too far out to really build a program around. If we do discover an object that we can visit soon, that makes a NEO-focus much more likely. If not, I'm pretty sure the Moon will start to look attractive again.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #3 on: 10/03/2010 05:28 pm »
(Responding again, as a way of bumping the thread.)

One of the major things that can happen between now and the start of the Report is the discovery of a NEO that is reachable by humans before 2020. At the moment, we just have 1999 AO10 in 2025, which is too far out to really build a program around. If we do discover an object that we can visit soon, that makes a NEO-focus much more likely. If not, I'm pretty sure the Moon will start to look attractive again.
In one of the reports on a NEO mission, the list on NEOs was constrained to those with an inclination pretty close to the ecliptic. Doesn't it make sense to widen the search to all NEOs and then figure out delta-v to (and from) each? Also, couldn't we allow more delta-v in order to get a quicker mission or broaden the list of NEO candidates? ...especially with fuel depots. Also, have non-traditional trajectories been exhaustively searched for each of these targets?

Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a manned mission to a NEO without first sending an unmanned mission, so even a much sooner NEO mission wouldn't necessarily be feasible... we still have to build and launch a probe to such a target, and that takes time.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #4 on: 10/05/2010 12:48 am »
Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a manned mission to a NEO without first sending an unmanned mission, so even a much sooner NEO mission wouldn't necessarily be feasible... we still have to build and launch a probe to such a target, and that takes time.

Why doesn't it make sense?  Why must a probe be sent everywhere, everytime first?  What specifically forces such planning into the critical path into even going to a small rock in deep space?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #5 on: 10/05/2010 01:12 am »
Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a manned mission to a NEO without first sending an unmanned mission, so even a much sooner NEO mission wouldn't necessarily be feasible... we still have to build and launch a probe to such a target, and that takes time.

Why doesn't it make sense?  Why must a probe be sent everywhere, everytime first?  What specifically forces such planning into the critical path into even going to a small rock in deep space?
It's all about return-on-investment. Sending a probe first means you know what questions you want to answer, and you can tailor your instruments properly and know what kind of tools to bring. We're supposedly doing this for science, remember?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #6 on: 10/05/2010 01:21 am »
There happens to be a close-approach by 1999 AO10 in 2018 (a full seven years before a manned mission on the much closer approach in 2026), where it comes within about .12 AU and 6.6 km/s relative delta-v (past Earth-escape). That should be well within the capability for a probe with ion thrusters or a high-performance chemical upper stage. This may be difficult for a manned mission, but would be fine for an unmanned one which is less massive and can be one-way.

It wouldn't even have to be a terribly expensive probe.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2010 01:23 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #7 on: 10/05/2010 01:21 am »
Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a manned mission to a NEO without first sending an unmanned mission, so even a much sooner NEO mission wouldn't necessarily be feasible... we still have to build and launch a probe to such a target, and that takes time.

Why doesn't it make sense?  Why must a probe be sent everywhere, everytime first?  What specifically forces such planning into the critical path into even going to a small rock in deep space?

I agree. But let's suppose we do need unmanned probes to grace every target first before we land people. How much earlier does the probe need to be there? My take is that it only needs to be there a few hours earlier. The crew could match orbit with the asteroid, release the space probe, and wait, say, a half day while HQ mulls over the probe's images and picks landing targets.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #8 on: 10/05/2010 01:23 am »
And what about safety?  You'd want to characterize the hazards.  For example, will thrusters impinging on the surface generate a hailstorm of pebbles that might damage an approaching spacecraft?

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #9 on: 10/05/2010 01:25 am »
Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a manned mission to a NEO without first sending an unmanned mission, so even a much sooner NEO mission wouldn't necessarily be feasible... we still have to build and launch a probe to such a target, and that takes time.

Why doesn't it make sense?  Why must a probe be sent everywhere, everytime first?  What specifically forces such planning into the critical path into even going to a small rock in deep space?
It's all about return-on-investment. Sending a probe first means you know what questions you want to answer, and you can tailor your instruments properly and know what kind of tools to bring. We're supposedly doing this for science, remember?

I'm actualy with you on this, at least until we mature (over several decades) our spacecraft capabilities.

And this doesn't have to be just science. Just the ROI aspect is a good enough reason. If we were faced with the same asteroid environment as was portrayed on Deep Impact or Armaggedon, we may be thankful to get our astronauts back in one piece, or even venture outside the craft. Just imagine all the questions congress would ask of NASA on WHY they never sent out a scout first to understand what they would be facing.

Would we send a manned vehicle to the depths of Europa on our first attempt, or would we send a robotic 'submarine' first? For places like Mars and the moon, we can probably find that level of comfort that the vehicles we design can handle most terrain plausible, but we've seen enough of both to know it IS hostile & hazardous (cliffs, jagged rocks, weather, ect).

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #10 on: 10/05/2010 01:43 am »
Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a manned mission to a NEO without first sending an unmanned mission, so even a much sooner NEO mission wouldn't necessarily be feasible... we still have to build and launch a probe to such a target, and that takes time.

Why doesn't it make sense?  Why must a probe be sent everywhere, everytime first?  What specifically forces such planning into the critical path into even going to a small rock in deep space?
It's all about return-on-investment. Sending a probe first means you know what questions you want to answer, and you can tailor your instruments properly and know what kind of tools to bring. We're supposedly doing this for science, remember?

That doesn't hold a lot of weight actually.  What your saying is we need a probe with a science package to tell us what other science package we need to bring along?  In the limited budget world that you like to address on other threads, this seems like an unnecessary item. 

These instruments are generally not power intensive, nor do they require a huge volume.  Plus, if you are sending a crew you would likely multiply your "scientific return" by many factors if you account for the "human factor".

Plus, science is definitely a factor.  It is not the *only* factor. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #11 on: 10/05/2010 01:46 am »
I should note that without sending a probe, all we know about 1999 AO10 is what can be extracted from a point of light. With Apollo, we had maps of the landing sites, and thus could plan ahead of time. Heck, Apollo 12's landing site was first visited by Surveyor 3.

Considering the cost of a small unmanned spacecraft, this seems like an obvious thing to do. NEOs generally have lots of close-encounters, and as long as you are within 10 or 12km/s for one of them, it's within our capability using off-the-shelf ion engine technology.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #12 on: 10/05/2010 01:54 am »
I should note that without sending a probe, all we know about 1999 AO10 is what can be extracted from a point of light. With Apollo, we had maps of the landing sites, and thus could plan ahead of time. Heck, Apollo 12's landing site was first visited by Surveyor 3.

Considering the cost of a small unmanned spacecraft, this seems like an obvious thing to do. NEOs generally have lots of close-encounters, and as long as you are within 10 or 12km/s for one of them, it's within our capability using off-the-shelf ion engine technology.

The moon is, well, the moon.  It is 1/6 the size of Earth.  NEOs are not. 

Define "small cost" and keep trying on how this is "obvious" because you are not there yet. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #13 on: 10/05/2010 02:07 am »
I should note that without sending a probe, all we know about 1999 AO10 is what can be extracted from a point of light. With Apollo, we had maps of the landing sites, and thus could plan ahead of time. Heck, Apollo 12's landing site was first visited by Surveyor 3.

Considering the cost of a small unmanned spacecraft, this seems like an obvious thing to do. NEOs generally have lots of close-encounters, and as long as you are within 10 or 12km/s for one of them, it's within our capability using off-the-shelf ion engine technology.

The moon is, well, the moon.  It is 1/6 the size of Earth.  NEOs are not. 
So what? We still knew about the landing site with far greater detail than we do with, for instance, 1999 AO10, from both Earth-based telescopes, and (even more importantly) the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft (which were small, less than 400kg each).
Quote
Define "small cost"
from $100 million to $400 million
Quote
and keep trying on how this is "obvious" because you are not there yet. 
I know I won't convince you.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #14 on: 10/05/2010 02:13 am »
I should note that without sending a probe, all we know about 1999 AO10 is what can be extracted from a point of light. With Apollo, we had maps of the landing sites, and thus could plan ahead of time. Heck, Apollo 12's landing site was first visited by Surveyor 3.

Considering the cost of a small unmanned spacecraft, this seems like an obvious thing to do. NEOs generally have lots of close-encounters, and as long as you are within 10 or 12km/s for one of them, it's within our capability using off-the-shelf ion engine technology.

The moon is, well, the moon.  It is 1/6 the size of Earth.  NEOs are not. 
So what? We still knew about the landing site with far greater detail than we do with, for instance, 1999 AO10, from both Earth-based telescopes, and (even more importantly) the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft (which were small, less than 400kg each).
Quote
Define "small cost"
from $100 million to $400 million
Quote
and keep trying on how this is "obvious" because you are not there yet. 
I know I won't convince you.

No, you probably won't.

Interesting that you bracket "small cost" at nearly an additional 1/2 billion that must be spent any time we want to go anywhere, even "smaller" destinations.  Now, that's some overhead.  Facinating how this is acceptable yet so many other things are not. 

As for the rest, it goes back to my first comment about a science package to tell us what kind of science package is needed to visit a small rock.  Nothing "wrong" with your comment just incredibly interesting for a variety of reasons.  Thanks for sharing your insight. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #15 on: 10/05/2010 03:43 am »
I should note that without sending a probe, all we know about 1999 AO10 is what can be extracted from a point of light. With Apollo, we had maps of the landing sites, and thus could plan ahead of time. Heck, Apollo 12's landing site was first visited by Surveyor 3.

Considering the cost of a small unmanned spacecraft, this seems like an obvious thing to do. NEOs generally have lots of close-encounters, and as long as you are within 10 or 12km/s for one of them, it's within our capability using off-the-shelf ion engine technology.

The moon is, well, the moon.  It is 1/6 the size of Earth.  NEOs are not. 
So what? We still knew about the landing site with far greater detail than we do with, for instance, 1999 AO10, from both Earth-based telescopes, and (even more importantly) the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft (which were small, less than 400kg each).
Quote
Define "small cost"
from $100 million to $400 million
Quote
and keep trying on how this is "obvious" because you are not there yet. 
I know I won't convince you.

No, you probably won't.

Interesting that you bracket "small cost" at nearly an additional 1/2 billion that must be spent any time we want to go anywhere, even "smaller" destinations.  Now, that's some overhead.  Facinating how this is acceptable yet so many other things are not. 
That's all-inclusive costs, total. The high end would be for a large spacecraft orbiter (weighing over a ton) likely with a separate lander and long-term study of the NEO. The low end would be a mapping mission, with a possible touch-down. It could be much lower... subsequent missions of the smaller spacecraft could be done for much less, perhaps around $50-60 million each.

I was being conservative in my cost estimates and using historical examples.
Quote
...  Thanks for sharing your insight. 
You're welcome.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #16 on: 10/05/2010 03:53 am »
That's all-inclusive costs, total. The high end would be for a large spacecraft orbiter (weighing over a ton) likely with a separate lander and long-term study of the NEO. The low end would be a mapping mission, with a possible touch-down. It could be much lower... subsequent missions of the smaller spacecraft could be done for much less, perhaps around $50-60 million each.

I was being conservative in my cost estimates and using historical examples.

Ahh...but that really changes nothing. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #17 on: 10/05/2010 04:04 am »
That's all-inclusive costs, total. The high end would be for a large spacecraft orbiter (weighing over a ton) likely with a separate lander and long-term study of the NEO. The low end would be a mapping mission, with a possible touch-down. It could be much lower... subsequent missions of the smaller spacecraft could be done for much less, perhaps around $50-60 million each.

I was being conservative in my cost estimates and using historical examples.

Ahh...but that really changes nothing. 
Changes nothing about what?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #18 on: 10/05/2010 04:16 am »
My thoughts or the meaning behind the previous posts. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #19 on: 10/05/2010 06:42 am »
The moon is, well, the moon.  It is 1/6 the size of Earth.  NEOs are not.

Let's be more precise. The Moon is 1.23% the mass of Earth. The total mass of small bodies interior of Jupiter is a quarter of the mass of the Moon. Of those, there are ~750,000 objects greater than 1 km. Near-Earth objects account for 500-1000 of those, 0.07-0.14%. Around ~1% of near Earth objects are "easily" reachable by a manned mission (a,e,i close to Earth). So, ~0.001% of asteroids are potential targets, meaning a total mass reachable of ~3*10^-8 Earth Mass = 2*10^17 kg.
For comparison, that's about 10x the mass of Phobos. However, the synodic period is inversely proportional to distance to Earth, so the "reachable" NEOs are only actually reachable at widely separated intervals.

So, "few and far between" is a very accurate description of manned NEO mission opportunities. Lunar launch opportunities occur monthly, and always allow access to significant object. It's pretty clear which the opportunity/benefit ratio favors. And the more the flight opportunities, the cheaper per flight...

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #20 on: 10/06/2010 01:53 pm »
I should note that without sending a probe, all we know about 1999 AO10 is what can be extracted from a point of light. With Apollo, we had maps of the landing sites, and thus could plan ahead of time. Heck, Apollo 12's landing site was first visited by Surveyor 3.

Considering the cost of a small unmanned spacecraft, this seems like an obvious thing to do. NEOs generally have lots of close-encounters, and as long as you are within 10 or 12km/s for one of them, it's within our capability using off-the-shelf ion engine technology.

(FYI: I'm agreeing with you)
It comes down to generalizations.

If we can clump all NEOs out there into a general model, then we can reasonably expect to know how most of them will be like. Hayabusa has provided some valuable insight, as has other probes.

If we NEVER sent a single probe to the moon or Mars, would we be comfortable in sending out a manned lander to explore that body? Do we know if the atmosphere, or the weather patterns, on Mars would have a detrimental impact on the vehicle's landing or long-duration stay? Can we extract resources from the surface to endure a long-duration stay? Phoenix has proved invaluable, imo.

Same with your comments on the lunar landings. We had a certain comfort level before we left planet Earth for the moon in a manned lander. There were many concerns about the lander's feet sinking into the surface.

So depending on our comfort level  & understanding of a particular body, say the exoplanet planet orbiting around the star Gliese 581, can we really say we can launch something that will meet all our requirements?

We might be okay for NEOs as we currently understand them, but if we get there and realize we 'goofed' and can't even get close enough except to take pictures, there will be difficult questions asked by congress.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #21 on: 10/06/2010 04:23 pm »
There's also the possibility of using the same probe to flyby multiple NEOs. High-Isp propulsion and efficient trajectory analysis make this possible. If you string out a series of probes in near-Earth-coorbital trajectories, it may be possible to visually map lots of NEOs for less money.

And you're right, somewhat, about being able to make generalizations with regard to what kind of asteroid we're visiting without necessarily sending a probe there first.

It's certainly possible to do a manned mission without first sending a probe, but is it really a good idea? It seems obvious to me that you'd almost always want to send a probe first to reconnoiter if you can. JMHO.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2010 06:09 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #22 on: 10/06/2010 07:45 pm »
And what about safety?  You'd want to characterize the hazards.  For example, will thrusters impinging on the surface generate a hailstorm of pebbles that might damage an approaching spacecraft?

Didn't happen with the lunar landers and they had much higher thrust requirement than anything that would land/rendezvous on an asteroid. Just assume the worst (that the asteroid is a moving pile of rubble of the worst size, whatever that happens to be) and design your thrusters accordingly so that they don't focus the exhaust enough to make this an issue.

Even if you do need to "characterize the hazards" prior to a manned activity, it doesn't need to be that far ahead of time. I still think a few hours is more than enough time. As I understand it, the claim is that we have to significantly delay a manned activity (say by years or decades) because a probe needs to be sent ahead of time. Thing is that we know any NEO is going to be interesting. So there's no reason not to send people no matter what the probe reports (unless it's say, hostile aliens that shoot everything that gets near them). If there turns out to be a nasty hazard that the mission isn't prepared for, then they abort and head home.

Added: For a historical example, it's worth noting that the unmanned part of Apollo didn't delay the program in any way. I don't consider it that hard to plan any unmanned requirements (even with trickier launch windows and tougher trajectories) so that your manned part doesn't slip in schedule.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2010 07:56 pm by khallow »
Karl Hallowell

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #23 on: 10/06/2010 08:03 pm »
And what about safety?  You'd want to characterize the hazards.  For example, will thrusters impinging on the surface generate a hailstorm of pebbles that might damage an approaching spacecraft?

Didn't happen with the lunar landers and they had much higher thrust requirement than anything that would land/rendezvous on an asteroid. Just assume the worst (that the asteroid is a moving pile of rubble of the worst size, whatever that happens to be) and design your thrusters accordingly so that they don't focus the exhaust enough to make this an issue.

Even if you do need to "characterize the hazards" prior to a manned activity, it doesn't need to be that far ahead of time. I still think a few hours is more than enough time. As I understand it, the claim is that we have to significantly delay a manned activity (say by years or decades) because a probe needs to be sent ahead of time. Thing is that we know any NEO is going to be interesting. So there's no reason not to send people no matter what the probe reports (unless it's say, hostile aliens that shoot everything that gets near them). If there turns out to be a nasty hazard that the mission isn't prepared for, then they abort and head home.

Added: For a historical example, it's worth noting that the unmanned part of Apollo didn't delay the program in any way. I don't consider it that hard to plan any unmanned requirements (even with trickier launch windows and tougher trajectories) so that your manned part doesn't slip in schedule.

I wasn't thinking about delaying the manned launch until a probe is sent, but instead to send a probe ahead of time if possible. And, the reason was to determine exactly what kind of instruments to bring. If it's a solid body, you'd want different instruments and tools than if it were a rubble pile, etc. Safety may influence this, but mostly it's about science.

PS, the Moon has far more gravity than a NEO... It's pretty easy to send dust and pebbles into orbit or on a nearly-hyperbolic trajectory.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2010 08:04 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #24 on: 10/06/2010 08:23 pm »

We might be okay for NEOs as we currently understand them, but if we get there and realize we 'goofed' and can't even get close enough except to take pictures, there will be difficult questions asked by congress.

The real question here is how much does it reduce the risk? There are all sorts of problems that could result in the above risk or worse. And as I see it, the trick to handling Congress has more to do with managing expectations and coming up with alternate deliverables in case of abort.

Keep in mind too that congressional inquiry tends to be a poor indication of overall program risk. There are certain things that you acquire additional liability by doing. For example, if I try to save someone's life with first aid, then I am liable to some degree, if I misapply that effort and cause more harm. But I wouldn't acquire liability, if I just passed by and ignored the person in trouble (assuming no one gets hard evidence of me doing so). Similarly, looking before you leap opens you up to the risk that you have a problem which you could or should have noticed during the looking phase. But if you just leap in, then it's much harder to be blamed for an environmental problem which causes congressional inquiry.
Karl Hallowell

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #25 on: 10/06/2010 11:06 pm »
   I'm inclined to agree with OV et. al. that dedicated probe is not necessary.

Regarding instruments: the HSF mission would carry whatever's the most reasonable set of generic instruments that fit within the electrical power and development budget available.
   1) A first probe might allow you to chose custom instruments for the follow-up HSF mission, and do somewhat better science, but that first mission costs money not available elsewhere. You're likely to get more overall science for your buck spending it on a mission to a type of body that you are not otherwise going to visit.
    2) The best instruments are at home on Earth, regardless. The most important thing the HSF mission can do for science is take a wide variety of samples. Free sample return.
    3) Ultimately, science is not the point of a NEO mission, although it comes along for the ride. The real goal is demonstrating that BEO HSF is possible (habitation beyond LEO, reliability of our systems, infrastructure to operate at high delta-v) -- demonstrating those to ourselves as engineering achievements for further planning, and to the world (and the US public and Congress) that we are on the cusp of something great, something worthy of continued funding.

Regarding safety:
     4) If we regard a NEO (especially a small one) as a fragile agglomeration, we can proceed prudently, no? ISS (and MIR) has already given considerable experience with prox ops & thruster plume impingement. Take it a step at a time, use a very small (tethered?) probe from Orion, use MMUs or the MMSEV, etc.
     5) A comet might be considerably more hazardous -- outgassing, ice crystal discharges? But a NEO is not going to be something like Armageddon, or landing on Enceladus.
     6) Ultimately, we need to be willing to embrace more risk. Live TV of the first astronauts reaching, gently, to touch the surface ... well, cynically, so much the better in the long run if it's not completely hazard free. Reality TV of the highest sort.

      -Alex

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #26 on: 10/06/2010 11:34 pm »
   I'm inclined to agree with OV et. al. that dedicated probe is not necessary.

Regarding instruments: the HSF mission would carry whatever's the most reasonable set of generic instruments that fit within the electrical power and development budget available.
   1) A first probe might allow you to chose custom instruments for the follow-up HSF mission, and do somewhat better science, but that first mission costs money not available elsewhere. You're likely to get more overall science for your buck spending it on a mission to a type of body that you are not otherwise going to visit.
    2) The best instruments are at home on Earth, regardless. The most important thing the HSF mission can do for science is take a wide variety of samples. Free sample return.
    3) Ultimately, science is not the point of a NEO mission, although it comes along for the ride. The real goal is demonstrating that BEO HSF is possible (habitation beyond LEO, reliability of our systems, infrastructure to operate at high delta-v) -- demonstrating those to ourselves as engineering achievements for further planning, and to the world (and the US public and Congress) that we are on the cusp of something great, something worthy of continued funding.

Regarding safety:
     4) If we regard a NEO (especially a small one) as a fragile agglomeration, we can proceed prudently, no? ISS (and MIR) has already given considerable experience with prox ops & thruster plume impingement. Take it a step at a time, use a very small (tethered?) probe from Orion, use MMUs or the MMSEV, etc.
     5) A comet might be considerably more hazardous -- outgassing, ice crystal discharges? But a NEO is not going to be something like Armageddon, or landing on Enceladus.
     6) Ultimately, we need to be willing to embrace more risk. Live TV of the first astronauts reaching, gently, to touch the surface ... well, cynically, so much the better in the long run if it's not completely hazard free. Reality TV of the highest sort.

      -Alex

Three things:

1. Flying a science payload to a specific body when you intend to go manned is pointless, I think we can all agree on that. Robotic is much cheaper without question, and as you say, the best instruments are on Earth.

But we send a recon craft, with rudimentary imaging & data gathering to know what we are up against, I think that would be a fair mission to undertake before devoting vast resources to:
  a) something we needn't bother with
  b) something that is currently beyond our means.

2) How do we know about NEOs? Can we know everything about their rotational speed & composition & magnetic properties & gravity & surface features to know we can be prepared for a close approach and/or landing? We know some things from Earth-based telescopes, but we also know from close approaches from previous crafts. If we NEVER visited one, then we can make a great case for whether a pre-sursor mission is required.

3) If the goal of a NEO is just a trip around the block, then I would put a Venus fly-by ahead of it. We certainly can't afford to land there, so there is no worry about thinking about a lander or explorer craft; just a glorified Apollo-8 mission, but much cooler. :8)

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #27 on: 06/21/2011 08:23 am »
I copied the following post from the SLS announcement thread to this one, where it should hopefully be more topical. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't the 2012 National Academies study supposed to be the one which sorts out goals, timetables, etc?

In any event, I see the flexible path as a descoped version of Constellation (a "Constellation lite"). But this descoped version has more chances of succeding because it is incremental. However, it will also need very effective streamlining measures for it to work.

Sure, I guess it is easy to call something a success when you have absolutely zero metrics in which to measure it against.  I mean the "flexible path to Mars" is so vague and non-specific with zero destination(s) or time table(s).  Ok- I guess we are supposed to go to a small rock, somewhere, maybe 15-20 years from now, exciting and sure does provide focus and motivation to do something now!!

In order to "streamline" something you first have to have "something" in place. 
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate bill's 2012 National Academies study
« Reply #28 on: 06/22/2011 03:57 am »

Look, the bottom line is this: From the congressional viewpoint, as the consistent language of three different Acts over a six-year period should make clear, is that NASA has clear-cut "authority" to undertake a mission to return to the Moon, prepare to go to Mars, decide interim missions to NEO's, Lagrange points, anywhere in Cis-Lunar space; any of the above, all of the above, some intelligent combination of the above.

Will it be essential to have a clear focus on and support for specific missions, which will guide the development of the additional capabilities needed to either simply transit out and back to any given point, orbit the Moon, or land and do either short or long-term or permanent establishment of bases? Of course, and it is the hope and intent of the 2010 Act that the National Academies Review will help develop a consensus on just what options make the most sense and around which a political/policy consensus can be built. In the meantime, the fundamental fact--maybe debatable for those who want to continue to debate--is that virtually any of those prospective missions will require a substantial follow-on launch capability to the Shuttle. The Congress resolved that debate in the form of the 2010 compromise leading to the 2010 Act in the best way it could with the best information it could find and validate, and the result was the combination of the SLS and MPCV. The lead-time necessary for those developments is sufficiently long under almost any funding scenario, that the desire was to get moving quickly, and the determination was made that the best way to do that was to maximize the use of known capabilities, rather than start with a clean sheet for a brand spanking new high-technology vehicle that would have an extended development time and provide no interim capability for addressing the REALITY of a vehicle (the ISS) that is now the focal point for the near-term of active U.S. human spaceflight operations.  Those were the driving factors underlying the approach taken in the 2010 Act with regard to the development of a government-owned and operated system intended to ENABLE missions beyond low-earth orbit, and do so on as timely a basis as possible. The bill was not "unipolar" in its approach, and included provisions and authorization of funds for the responsible development of commercial capabilities for both cargo and crew to LEO as the primary means of meeting the needs of ISS. It is specifically designed to be a dual-path development. The ONLY reason that there is any sense of competition between those two concurrent activities is in the event the Administration chooses not to request sufficient funding to enable both efforts to move forward--as they have done in the FY 2012 Budget Request. It is THAT shortsightedness--fostered within OMB as opposed to at the true policy level of the White House--that represents the greatest single threat to the US being able to move forward on a responsible path to sustain not only a presence in, but a leadership role in future human space flight.  There is a secondary threat in the form of a widely prevalent and growing attitude within Congress to cut, cut, cut, all too often without regard to the actual long term consequences of such cuts. The challenge is to make the case to both of those "blocks" of power that HSF is an investment worth making that historically contributes enough to economic growth and technical excellence that serves as an "engine" of economic strength that it is something that the nation cannot afford NOT to invest adequate funding in. Those are the real challenges we face, and that is where the real energies and debate should be focused, in my view. The Act sets up a mechanism for helping shape that debate in the National Academies review requirement that is intended to put "meat on the bones" of a firm set of consensus goals and objectives. By the time that is completed in 2014, we should be at an excellent point to start defining the specific destinations, payloads, additional space-based capabilities required, and build the expanded public and political constituencies to provide the sustaining support needed to see them through.

The parts in bold of the post above also discusses the FY2012 National Academies study.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2011 04:02 am by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1