Doesn't the flexable path make the most sense if you want more immediate demonstrable results from NASA. And incremental policy maybe healthier than a Mars or bust vision which may take more than 2 or 3 political cycles to do. I say we have Mars in our sites as the endpoint focus of NASA. But that an immediate flexable path be charted to develope NEOs and a manned Phobos mission. The longpole in getting to Mars is the heavy EDL system. Begin funding that now - but in paralell with a flexable path so that we can capture and keep the publcs attention. IMHO
Without landings, what does the flexible path have that will interest the public?L2? We flew to an empty point in space that is interesting to physicists.NEO? We took a once-in-30 year launch opportunity to fly to an asteroid, orbit it, but not actually get out.Even worse, because a flexible path can be done with small rockets (and depots), you risk losing the infrastructure necessary to launch landers. So you end up stranded in nowhereland forever.Quote from: engstudent on 07/18/2009 12:17 pmDoesn't the flexable path make the most sense if you want more immediate demonstrable results from NASA. And incremental policy maybe healthier than a Mars or bust vision which may take more than 2 or 3 political cycles to do. I say we have Mars in our sites as the endpoint focus of NASA. But that an immediate flexable path be charted to develope NEOs and a manned Phobos mission. The longpole in getting to Mars is the heavy EDL system. Begin funding that now - but in paralell with a flexable path so that we can capture and keep the publcs attention. IMHO
Without landings, what does the flexible path have that will interest the public?
Flexible Path sounds nice but actually doesn't make any sense from an engineering/architecture perspective. Am I right?
That’s easy. The primary goal of the Flexible Path should be the development of mankind’s first true interplanetary spaceship. Development of such a ship, capable of reaching the Moon, Mars, Venus, and possibly the asteroid belt from LEO and returning to LEO for refitting, re-supply, and multiple missions would likely be more inspirational than any reprise of Apollo. This would require the construction several developmental craft, each with more advanced than the last. Evolutionary development of life support, radiation shielding, low g mitigation, and propulsion would allow for early missions to LEO and GEO targets, progressing to NEO, Lagrange targets, and Lunar orbit. Each generation of ships should, at a minimum, have a crew of at least 10-20 members, be at least as large as the ISS, and have an operational lifetime of at least two decades.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/18/2009 02:53 pmThat’s easy. The primary goal of the Flexible Path should be the development of mankind’s first true interplanetary spaceship. Development of such a ship, capable of reaching the Moon, Mars, Venus, and possibly the asteroid belt from LEO and returning to LEO for refitting, re-supply, and multiple missions would likely be more inspirational than any reprise of Apollo. This would require the construction several developmental craft, each with more advanced than the last. Evolutionary development of life support, radiation shielding, low g mitigation, and propulsion would allow for early missions to LEO and GEO targets, progressing to NEO, Lagrange targets, and Lunar orbit. Each generation of ships should, at a minimum, have a crew of at least 10-20 members, be at least as large as the ISS, and have an operational lifetime of at least two decades.This is what I support as well.
That seems hopelessly unrealistic to me.
L2? We flew to an empty point in space that is interesting to physicists.
NEO? We took a once-in-30 year launch opportunity to fly to an asteroid, orbit it, but not actually get out.
Even worse, because a flexible path can be done with small rockets (and depots), you risk losing the infrastructure necessary to launch landers.
So you end up stranded in nowhereland forever.
Moon to Mars, or more completely Moon on the way to Mars, is a scenario in which the primary objective is Mars exploration, and all systems are designed for Mars. Only when it is beneficial to use the Moon as a true test bed for these Mars exploration systems will flights to the Moon be conducted.
This seems to be the most sensible approach if you see Mars as your endpoint as it was originally stated in the Vision for Space Exploration.
I don't see the benifit of going to L2