Another ESD Con Ops (L2) based article. This time it's Marshall Murphy which his second article for the site. What you see is what he wrote. Hardly any subediting required - very talented young man, as it normally take a lot of articles to get to the point you don't need a lot of subediting - myself included:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/nasa-evaluate-yearlong-asteroid-mission/
Also, President Obama's pro asteroid leadership of NASA only lasts until early 2017 and then international Lunar ISRU missions will most likely become NASA's main focus for beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight.
Interesting that they are naming an asteroid as a target. That would potentially mean they have a launch year picked out for the mission right? Will the full up SLS with advanced boosters and 5 SSME's be needed for this mission or will the Block 1 A/B be able to do both launches?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/10/2013 12:29 amAnother ESD Con Ops (L2) based article. This time it's Marshall Murphy which his second article for the site. What you see is what he wrote. Hardly any subediting required - very talented young man, as it normally take a lot of articles to get to the point you don't need a lot of subediting - myself included:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/nasa-evaluate-yearlong-asteroid-mission/Interesting that they are naming an asteroid as a target. That would potentially mean they have a launch year picked out for the mission right? Will the full up SLS with advanced boosters and 5 SSME's be needed for this mission or will the Block 1 A/B be able to do both launches?
If SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?
Quote from: Mark S on 09/10/2013 05:10 pmIf SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?DUUS, which has recently been renamed to Exploration Upper Stage, should be sufficient and is probably even better.
Quote from: M129K on 09/10/2013 05:46 pmQuote from: Mark S on 09/10/2013 05:10 pmIf SLS Block-1B is developed, would this mission still require a dedicated in-space CPS? Or would the DUUS be sufficient for both launch and TAI (trans-asteroid injection)?DUUS, which has recently been renamed to Exploration Upper Stage, should be sufficient and is probably even better.DUUS dosen't carry enough prop. It would need a lot larger tank about 30mt of prop larger tank or twice its current load. So by the time you do this to DUUD you have almost a new vehicle anyway even if it shares a lot of hardware with DUUS such as engines.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 09/10/2013 01:48 pmAlso, President Obama's pro asteroid leadership of NASA only lasts until early 2017 and then international Lunar ISRU missions will most likely become NASA's main focus for beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight.I have no idea why you care so much about lunar ISRU missions.....
I am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.
Quote from: newpylong on 09/11/2013 02:26 pmI am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.The primary problem is lack of funds, not lack of mass. Why do people always get this reversed?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:08 pmQuote from: newpylong on 09/11/2013 02:26 pmI am pretty sure from what little we know about the DUUS/EUS it would be able to satisfy the mission requirements. By not using the J-2X you are cutting down on a lot of mass which can be made into larger tankage.The primary problem is lack of funds, not lack of mass. Why do people always get this reversed?Did you mean to respond to me?I don't care if it costs $1 or 100 Billion - my reply was in regards to the technical merits of the CPS vs DUUS/EUS.
Phobos/Deimos is what I wish they were considering!!
So this DRM is essentially moot if it is true that the DSH has just been cancelled?
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.
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.My (non expert) preference would be that instead of doing a year+ mission in preparation for a two+ year mission, your preparation should consist of an unmanned version of the two+ year mission, while simultaneously performing a full two+ year manned test of the hab much closer to earth. I don't understand the envelop expansion concept. If you are not testing something with the necessary push or lifesupport for the later mission, then you are not testing the exact hardware. If the one+ year mission reveals an issue, I would think it had pretty similar odds of being fatal.. except that it also would not have the redundancy of a previous massive unmanned cargo/survey mission.
By the way, in one of Garver's interviews (which, unfortunately, I can't find now) after the announcement of her departure from NASA, she mentioned that it was the doctors who killed the idea of actually visiting a free-range NEA. (It's a shame this wasn't discussed at the time; I suppose it was embarrassing to the Obama administration.) So I would guess there are some envelope-expanding intermediate steps envisioned.
...and yet Apollo did envelop expansion to an almost silly degree. They did Mercury, then Gemini (gradually longer), then Apollo, demonstrating orbital flight of the capsule, then docking with the LEM and manuevering it in LEO then a flight around the moon, then a flight around the moon and going down in the LEM to near the surface just to come back up, then all the way down for a little bit and right back up before coming back and doing longer missions.
Wrong forum section. You're looking for the lunar section.
It would be kind of embarrassing to launch a year-long $billion+ mission to a NEO "asteroid", only to find out that it was a used-up Saturn SIV-B stage upon arrival.
Proponent, this might be the Lori Garver quote you wanted:"The long-pull intent was for astronauts to go to an asteroid for some hundreds-of-days mission, but the medical community is not prepared to allow astronauts to do that yet."From: Exit Interview: Lori Garver on NASA’s Controversial Plan to Move an Asteroid By Corey S. Powell August 16, 2013At: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/08/16/exit-interview-lori-garver-on-nasas-mission-to-move-an-asteroid/#.UjWHk39H5Cy
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: 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.
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: 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?
Yeah, I'm really starting to feel that some people on this forum just hate the idea of exploring asteroids.. at all. I wonder if they've read any John S. Lewis, or otherwise understand the potential here.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/16/2013 12:43 amYeah, I'm really starting to feel that some people on this forum just hate the idea of exploring asteroids.. at all. I wonder if they've read any John S. Lewis, or otherwise understand the potential here.John who?If he doesn't subscribe to the Zubrin or Spudis doctrines, obviously some heretic.
why this thread is pinned to the top of the section! Anything else would be heresy?Lotta people on this forum understand the potential of asteroids. Most people, particularly policymakers, don't seem to understand that prioritizing tasks in space is crucial, and that easier things should be done first, so as to practice, practice, practice.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/03/2014 07:55 pm why this thread is pinned to the top of the section! Anything else would be heresy?Lotta people on this forum understand the potential of asteroids. Most people, particularly policymakers, don't seem to understand that prioritizing tasks in space is crucial, and that easier things should be done first, so as to practice, practice, practice.When Obama announced his asteroid-then-Mars plan, to me the concept for visiting an asteroid was more of demonstration that we could venture out that far plus do something while we were there. That the main goal was to demonstrate that we could operate part of the distance we had to go to get to Mars, which hopefully was paving the way for eventually traveling to Mars.When the Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) was announced, it didn't seem to address the need for learning how to operate at dramatically farther and farther distances. Instead it was more oriented towards pushing the boundaries of what we knew about asteroids. And in that regard there were likely better ways to do that than ARM.If the goal is Mars, and that has been the explicit goal since the VSE, then we need to be focusing on increasing our ability to confidently and competently operate at increasingly farther distances from Earth. Focusing too much on doing science at intermediate points distracts from that.
Two advertized rationales for HSF asteroid is to prove Orion in deep space, and because Obama uttered so. Two advertized difficulties for HSF asteroid is little to no abort modes, and no broad support in NASA or Congress. I would add two subordinate difficulties in that HSF asteroid gains no geopolitical return among space nations who are only at the capability of partnering in cis-lunar missions, and gains no public relations return among U.S. voters/taxpayers who have ultra low information on NASA and space. These factors operate in the presence of new space players...
I'd Love to see someone put up a fight that defends the audacity and virtue of an HSF asteroid mission across every metric.
imho Bolden admits that the ARM does not or barely satisfies science, sample and earth defense returns.
... and earth defense returns.
I haven't heard of detection as a rationale for HSF asteroid.