Who is the astronaut in the suit?
Unfortunately, humanity is in the position where the people with the lawyers, guns, and money, are insisting that we attempt to build the longest, most difficult leg of the stool first.
Quote from: Solman on 09/27/2013 12:45 amDisagree that there are three legs requisite for off-world economy and disagree that EML-1/2 are necessarily requisite either. An off-world economy centered on GEO using tele-operated mining/refining/manufacturing of dead sats (funded at first by infrastructure servicing revenue) followed by NEO material, requires no human presence with its attendant high cost and risk.I quite understand, but wtihout a human presence off-planet, that's a very narrow definition of an off-world economy. Obviously, there's no need for a human tended "base camp" at L1 or L2 if there's no humans involved.As to status updates on the mission of the OP, there are none to speak of, unless "status updates" are narrowly defined as press conferences and slide shows.
Disagree that there are three legs requisite for off-world economy and disagree that EML-1/2 are necessarily requisite either. An off-world economy centered on GEO using tele-operated mining/refining/manufacturing of dead sats (funded at first by infrastructure servicing revenue) followed by NEO material, requires no human presence with its attendant high cost and risk.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2013 01:56 pmI quite understand, but wtihout a human presence off-planet, that's a very narrow definition of an off-world economy. Obviously, there's no need for a human tended "base camp" at L1 or L2 if there's no humans involved.As to status updates on the mission of the OP, there are none to speak of, unless "status updates" are narrowly defined as press conferences and slide shows.There a significant number of reasons to stage at L2. Can you you explain the rationale for L1?Its L2, not L1!Most of the rationale for L1 and GEO (low ISP hypergolics, ...) are all based on one legged stool rationale.Been reading the posts...no rationale provided.{snip}
I quite understand, but wtihout a human presence off-planet, that's a very narrow definition of an off-world economy. Obviously, there's no need for a human tended "base camp" at L1 or L2 if there's no humans involved.As to status updates on the mission of the OP, there are none to speak of, unless "status updates" are narrowly defined as press conferences and slide shows.
Don't know if anyone caught this yet, but apparently the candidates that will work for this mission are starting to pile up.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/26/2013 01:46 pmUnfortunately, humanity is in the position where the people with the lawyers, guns, and money, are insisting that we attempt to build the longest, most difficult leg of the stool first. While the focus is on Mars, it does not require the hardware to be a one legged stool nor the architecture to be a one legged stool. It's a flexible path. If what you said was correct, NASA and its board of directors would be sending a capsule on a round trip to mars is a few years, yet some of them announced plans to extended ISS. IOW: decouple the architecture from the destinations--that is what is meant by a Mars focus, IMHO. Make the architecture sustainable by lowering IMLEO costs and trade mission mass vs costs to reduce this mission mass.
Quote from: Solman on 09/27/2013 12:45 amDisagree that there are three legs requisite for off-world economy and disagree that EML-1/2 are necessarily requisite either. An off-world economy centered on GEO using tele-operated mining/refining/manufacturing of dead sats (funded at first by infrastructure servicing revenue) followed by NEO material, requires no human presence with its attendant high cost and risk.I quite understand, but without a human presence off-planet, that's a very narrow definition of an off-world economy. Obviously, there's no need for a human tended "base camp" at L1 or L2 if there's no humans involved.As to status updates on the mission of the OP, there are none to speak of, unless "status updates" are narrowly defined as press conferences and slide shows.
There a significant number of reasons to stage at L2. Can you you explain the rationale for L1?Its L2, not L1!Most of the rationale for L1 and GEO (low ISP hypergolics, ...) are all based on one legged stool rationale.Been reading the posts...no rationale provided.A crew tended gateway can test radiation mitigation hardware concepts, act as a safehaven for lunar ops, stage for asteroids and Mars, has most cost effective deltaV for all the legs of the stool, ..., when positioned at L2. If one optimizes for any one leg of course, one can arrive at a different answer.
But if you simply state that you want the most cost effective architecture for any significant amount of mass BLEO, its depot centric.
According to Jeff Foust at Jeff Foust's piece at spacepolitics.com, the wording is“While the ARM is still an emerging concept, NASA has not provided Congress with satisfactory justification materials such as detailed cost estimates or impacts to ongoing missions. The completion of significant preliminary activities is needed to appropriately lay the groundwork for the ARM prior to NASA and Congress making a long-term commitment to this mission concept.”So, ARM seems to be proceeding provisionally.My prediction for some time has been that, despite their loud complaints about ARM and despite their big talk of going back to the moon, the Republicans on the House space subcommittee would eventually accept ARM simply because any better use of Orion/SLS would require much more money.EDIT: Added missing "the."
On a personal note, although I initially thought ARM grew out of a process of elimination type thinking (what do you do if you can't send a crew farther than the one place you're not going to land on?), the idea has begun to grow on me, especially after NASA posted a video of them testing shuttle orange suits in the neutral buoyancy tank for modification for EVA use. And let's be honest: Most people aren't following NASA's every move every day. And when footage comes back from astronauts a few thousand klicks past the Moon, it's be all over the place and floor the world. This could be spectacular if we pull it off. At the moment, I'm willing to give it a chance.
Quote from: CNYMike on 01/31/2014 03:49 amOn a personal note, although I initially thought ARM grew out of a process of elimination type thinking (what do you do if you can't send a crew farther than the one place you're not going to land on?), the idea has begun to grow on me, especially after NASA posted a video of them testing shuttle orange suits in the neutral buoyancy tank for modification for EVA use. And let's be honest: Most people aren't following NASA's every move every day. And when footage comes back from astronauts a few thousand klicks past the Moon, it's be all over the place and floor the world. This could be spectacular if we pull it off. At the moment, I'm willing to give it a chance.And if it can generate good publicity/support for NASA Human spaceflight, than congress might be more willing to fund the bigger, grander deep space missions.
Anyone harboring doubt about whether NASA’s proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission puts the agency on the road to Mars needs to “get over it,” NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said here in an April 22 keynote speech at the annual Humans to Mars summit.
Bolden: Don't like asteroid mission? Get over it!http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40315bolden-don%E2%80%99t-like-asteroid-mission-get-over-itQuoteAnyone harboring doubt about whether NASA’s proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission puts the agency on the road to Mars needs to “get over it,” NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said here in an April 22 keynote speech at the annual Humans to Mars summit.