NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Near Earth Asteroids (HSF) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 01/10/2010 03:53 am
-
Part 3 of about 5 of our article coverage of the internal NASA findings related to the Flexible Path approach.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/nasas-flexible-path-2025-human-mission-visit-asteroid/
-
6 months in only an Orion capsule?
-
Interesting article, Chris.
There was also a video released by NASA in 2007 for such a mission (which was different from the video on L2). You can find it here:
http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=NEOnauts2
and here (without music or narration):
http://www.digitalspace.com/projects/index/34.html#images
-
6 months in only an Orion capsule?
Orion is the transport. There's Habs they dock to for long duration.
-
So this hab or NEO lander would have to be built and tested
-
So this hab or NEO lander would have to be built and tested
As does Orion, ironically.
Really enjoying this series on Flexible path.
-
So this hab or NEO lander would have to be built and tested
Well, three prototypes for possible habs are in orbit right now.
We call them space stations.
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
I agree - isn't it about spending money to acheive a goal? Spend $50b on mars or $50b on moon or $50b on NEO. Want to do all 3 will cost more than $50b.
I choose Mars.
-
Nathan,
As much as I would love to see us go to Mars in my lifetime we're just not ready for such an undertaking.
We need to return to the Moon as a first step in order to gain the experience - and THEN in an orderly next step without a 30 year gap, return to Mars.
The Moon would be an excellent training ground for Mars and a way to test this next generation of spacecraft, systems and people.
Moon in 2020 and Mars in 2030/45.
-
I choose Mars.
Why choose Mars? What's this obsession with Mars? What's on Mars? We've sent several robotic probes to Mars and haven't found anything. Why go to Mars? Just because Von Braun said we should go there next?
Mars is too expensive. It's too difficult. It's too far away. And it's irrelevant to us here on Earth. The Moon is somewhat more relevant. NEOs are the most relevant, because they actually pose a threat to us.
I choose NEOs.
-
Nathan,
As much as I would love to see us go to Mars in my lifetime we're just not ready for such an undertaking.
We need to return to the Moon as a first step in order to gain the experience - and THEN in an orderly next step without a 30 year gap, return to Mars.
The Moon would be an excellent training ground for Mars and a way to test this next generation of spacecraft, systems and people.
Moon in 2020 and Mars in 2030/45.
I don't mind moon neo's etc as long as the technology is directly applicable to a mars mission. Otherwise we will be back to square one after another 40 years of avoiding the real goal. Neo missions are important. I don't see the point of the Moon - the money is better spent on a real geologically diverse destination.
And I love mars.
-
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
Well, Flexible Path was about doing something not costing as much as a full lunar program or a full Mars landing program which still brings us technology we can use to go to Mars. That still costs quite some money.
-
I like the idea of using the ISS as a testbed for flexible path technologies. Really, one doesn't need to go to the moon to test out new life support tech. They need to continue to improve water and oxygen recycling to ensure the tech works with minimal repair and replacement.
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
I agree - isn't it about spending money to acheive a goal? Spend $50b on mars or $50b on moon or $50b on NEO. Want to do all 3 will cost more than $50b.
I choose Mars.
Nathan: I'd like to see your factual demostration of the idea that Moon, NEO, and Mars landings will each cost the same, and that that will be $50bln.
NascentAscent: What would be the reason for thinking a hab module for a NEO mission would cost the same as Altair?
-
Before I forget, I did have one comment about the proposed 2025 NEO article: Anything that has a target date of 2025 constitutes kicking the can down the road and is unlikely ever to happen, whether it's Moon, Mars, NEO or a trip to the grocery store. Assume Obama serves two full terms. He'll be out of office in January 2017. Assume whoever is elected in November 2016 serves two full terms. He'll be out of office in January 2025. So. When Bill Clinton was rounding out his first year as President, why accurate and highly learned predictions were WE making about the Obama presidency then? Obama wasn't a blip on the radar, and neither were VSE, ESAS, Griffin, or any of it. 2025 is eight US election cycles in the future. Unless we see the President and a coalition of major US political figures get behind a program decision that puts hardware in space before the end of 2016, we're talking "ongoing shambles." I've been saying this since 1986.
-
Before I forget, I did have one comment about the proposed 2025 NEO article: Anything that has a target date of 2025 constitutes kicking the can down the road and is unlikely ever to happen, whether it's Moon, Mars, NEO or a trip to the grocery store. Assume Obama serves two full terms. He'll be out of office in January 2017. Assume whoever is elected in November 2016 serves two full terms. He'll be out of office in January 2025. So. When Bill Clinton was rounding out his first year as President, why accurate and highly learned predictions were WE making about the Obama presidency then? Obama wasn't a blip on the radar, and neither were VSE, ESAS, Griffin, or any of it. 2025 is eight US election cycles in the future. Unless we see the President and a coalition of major US political figures get behind a program decision that puts hardware in space before the end of 2016, we're talking "ongoing shambles." I've been saying this since 1986.
Absolutely true. And, although I will catch a lot of flak for saying this: That's one of the major advantages authoritarian systems have over democratic ones. They can afford to think long-term instead of just up to the next election cycle.
So, maybe human spaceflight fanatics really should start rooting for China, they are more likely than the US to attempt an ambitious long-term project...
-
"Fanatics" too often applies.
These are the major disadvantages authoritarian systems have: They do stupid things for a long time, because they have no election cycles, no responsibilities. Usually these stupid things are only good for its leaders, for a few, not for the vast majority of people. HSF does not pass even this test. So don't count on authoritarian systems.
We not doing massive HSF programs is a sign of democracy at work: The vast majority of people does not want them, even the long term benefits (measured in decades) are much, much lower than the recources needed. Despite its faults democracy often works, here it truely does.
Analyst
-
"Fanatics" too often applies.
These are the major disadvantages authoritarian systems have: They do stupid things for a long time, because they have no election cycles, no responsibilities. Usually these stupid things are only good for its leaders, for a few, not for the vast majority of people. HSF does not pass even this test. So don't count on authoritarian systems.
We not doing massive HSF programs is a sign of democracy at work: The vast majority of people does not want them, even the long term benefits (measured in decades) are much, much lower than the recources needed. Despite its faults democracy often works, here it truely does.
Analyst
I know. I didn't say I wanted an authoritarian regime. I was just pointing out that if you DO want a massive human spaceflight program, then you should pin your hopes on an authoritarian government, since this isn't likely to happen in a democracy...
-
Before I forget, I did have one comment about the proposed 2025 NEO article: Anything that has a target date of 2025 constitutes kicking the can down the road and is unlikely ever to happen, whether it's Moon, Mars, NEO or a trip to the grocery store.
This is a reference mission. You are forgetting that it follows certain requirements, like a precursor robotic mission to the same NEO in 2019 (with a contingency date a year or two later on in the event of schedule slips). A mid-sized robotic precursor mission requires at least a 4-5 year development program. That puts us in the 2014 range already. A manned NEO flight requires a. a fully tested HLV, b. a fully tested Orion, c. a fully tested hab module, d. a fully tested NEO lander, e. an Orion tested in a beyond-LEO environment and a safe Earth re-entry from beyond-LEO etc. Considering launch windows mentioned in the article for the robotic precursor mission and for the manned missions and the requirements, this reference mission seems reasonable in its time schedule.
-
If your going to spend 6 months going somewhere, go to mars. It has water, and atmosphere and gravity. bumping around an asteriod in nearly zero G is going to have lots of problems associate with it.
It be neat but not worth doing more than once, ever.
-
Hard to get excited about the remote possibility of such a mission 15 years down the line. Way too long from now - we need to do more sooner.
-
If your going to spend 6 months going somewhere, go to mars. It has water, and atmosphere and gravity. bumping around an asteriod in nearly zero G is going to have lots of problems associate with it.
Only that you can't go to Mars and come back in 6 months with current technology.
-
Only that you can't go to Mars and come back in 6 months with current technology.
a fly by and orbit of Mars in one year total its not that difficult i think..
on iss and mir crew can live for that time ..
Opposition class, chemical propulsion based Mars missions (flyby or short orbital) require about 450 days. 6 months = 180 days.
-
a fly by and orbit of Mars in one year total its not that difficult i think..
on iss and mir crew can live for that time ..
This is not comparable at all. The radiation as well as psychological difficulties of a Mars flight are orders of magnitude higher than ISS operations.
Simply put, we have no experience at all in prolonged human beyond-LEO space operations. Apollo doesn't count, since no mission lasted longer than 2 weeks and went out of sight of Earth.
So, if we actually want to do manned BEO exploration, we essentially have to start from scratch. And then, obviously, the best way forward is with small steps. Something along these lines:
- manned lunar flyby (6 days)
- manned lunar orbit (30 days), with the opportunity of a quick abort anytime
- GEO construction site (60-70 days, quick abort possible)
- NEO flight I (150 days)
- NEO flight II (300 days)
- Mars orbit / Phobos (basically NEO-like) flight (450 days)
Timeframe: at least 25 years. If there's money for a lander, then we can also do some lunar landings somewhere in there, but that's not a priority (since it's "been there, done that" anyway). As for Mars landings... I think expecting any human footprint on Mars before the second half of this century is unrealistic. Besides, Mars won't run away, and, like I said, is of little relevance to us on Earth (unlike NEOs).
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
A quote from the original piece:
“Apart from unique human-enabled science – including return of macroscopic samples and in situ conduct of subsurface active seismology – that could occur, human NEO missions offer two special benefits that support Flexible Path objectives:
“They have the ‘lowest price of entry’ of any human exploration missions to natural bodies. Trip times range from a few months up to Mars-class, and thus can drive development and qualification of long-lived, deep-space human systems and propulsion. Yet they do not require landers, ascent vehicles, or full-up roving mobility systems or surface infrastructure.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Whether this statement is true appears to be one of several "decision points" for the route forward.
-
I choose Mars.
Why choose Mars? What's this obsession with Mars? What's on Mars? We've sent several robotic probes to Mars and haven't found anything. Why go to Mars?
What do you mean they didn't find anything? Were you hoping to find palm trees or little green men? They found plenty, and brought back fantastic data. Just because they didn't find things YOU were hoping for, doesn't discourrage the effort.
We seem tuned into this idea that we need to find THAT MAJOR discovery, and then send out additional missions to back up the data or find additional discoveries. Mars may lock its secrets up so tight, it might take a 6-month manned expedition to unlock it. It might not have any MAJOR discoveries, just lots of neat resources we could use to survive one day if we choose to live there.
But yea, on your other points, Mars is too expensive to jump at right now. We also need to learn a whole lot more, including about urselves, before we can tackle such 'ginormous' missions.
-
Very good article Chris. :)
I like seeing the option of an Atlas V Heavy. There might be a way to push the development of commercial there, maybe even a parallel with ISS cargo re-supply/return. I also like the ISS being used to help this cause. Can anyone say Bigelow? Great opportunity to have a separate module attached for long-term testing, much like the Antarctic and Mars 500-day experiments.
Great science opportunities. A good way to develop many of the instruments (science and technology) that would be common to lunar operations, and for the eventual trip to Mars (note I say eventual). ;)
-
a fly by and orbit of Mars in one year total its not that difficult i think..
on iss and mir crew can live for that time ..
This is not comparable at all. The radiation as well as psychological difficulties of a Mars flight are orders of magnitude higher than ISS operations.
Simply put, we have no experience at all in prolonged human beyond-LEO space operations. Apollo doesn't count, since no mission lasted longer than 2 weeks and went out of sight of Earth.
So, if we actually want to do manned BEO exploration, we essentially have to start from scratch. And then, obviously, the best way forward is with small steps. Something along these lines:
- manned lunar flyby (6 days)
- manned lunar orbit (30 days), with the opportunity of a quick abort anytime
- GEO construction site (60-70 days, quick abort possible)
- NEO flight I (150 days)
- NEO flight II (300 days)
- Mars orbit / Phobos (basically NEO-like) flight (450 days)
Timeframe: at least 25 years. If there's money for a lander, then we can also do some lunar landings somewhere in there, but that's not a priority (since it's "been there, done that" anyway). As for Mars landings... I think expecting any human footprint on Mars before the second half of this century is unrealistic. Besides, Mars won't run away, and, like I said, is of little relevance to us on Earth (unlike NEOs).
Very well-rounded post.
-
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Whether this statement is true appears to be one of several "decision points" for the route forward.
Bill,
Considering that some upfront work has already been done on Altair, I just don't see how an asteroid bumper-lander and a hab module for six months would be significantly less costly than just to complete the Altair.
I think asteroid visits perhaps for the next 20 years would be fine mission for robotic probes. These could be small and relatively inexpensive and could easily include sample returns. The small gravity well makes these objects ideal for tiny probes in varying configurations.
Let's finish what we started with the Moon. Go back and establish a long-term manned presence.
-
The basic idea is quite good in terms of both the NEO science itself and in building up a capacity for visiting Phobos and Deimos. For the people worrying so much about time scales, I think the almost 30 years of Shuttle operations prove you can sustain a single program for quite a long time. I see no difference if ISS ops gradually evolve in Flexible Path ops.
No reason for the Hab to be as expensive as Altair with its massive propulsion system. I do wonder however how Orion is going to move about since it depended on Altair for lunar orbit insertion. Anybody having some knowledge as to how they are planning to deal with that?
-
To save time and prevent multi-posting, I'm going to post my responses here in one post.
Well, three prototypes for possible habs are in orbit right now.
We call them space stations.
Three prototypes? I know of only two: The ISS and Bigelow's Genesis-II. Unless China has already launched Tiangong-1, that is.
The ISS is really the wrong paradigm for a transit hab vehicle. I think that the Russian Salut-6-class (also used for Mir and ISS) is a good idea, as are the Transhab systems being developed by Bigelow. I understand that there are certain advantages to carbon composite hulls over metal hulls when dealing with high-energy radiation too.
What would my idea solution be? Probably something not dissimilar to the BA-330 Nautilus. Alternately something based on the ATV with a wider semi-rigid composite hab cylinder and maybe an EVA airlock too.
Just for the record, I know that Lockheed have been promoting an Orion/OrionLab combination with a 'cargo' Orion to act as a hab space for long-haul missions. I don't know how realistic that is.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Well... Maybe and maybe not. That I leave in the hands of those who know more about the subject than I.
FWIW, though, a Flexible Path hab/lab module wouldn't necessarily need a propulsion system of its own or the landing hardware and avionics. There may be some savings from that. Remember also that the hab module could possibly be utilised for many different missions including lunar orbiter, EML lab and even flyby missions for the inner planets. However, it is worth remembering that there will be mission equipment such as sensors for the encounter and surface experiment packages.
Remember that an asteroid 'lander' is something of a misomner. The Orion's RCS system will be able to handle the ascent on many NEOs, which have only theoretical levels of gravity. If anything, the engineering would be more like that of an orbit-to-orbit cargo tug which needs to dock with a large object that does not have a docking interface.
It could end up cheaper.
Hard to get excited about the remote possibility of such a mission 15 years down the line. Way too long from now - we need to do more sooner.
Absolutely. The objective should be to have the first missions as soon after ISS retirement as possible. 2020 at the earliest, IMHO, with the first Orion free-return lunar fly-arounds (to test Orion's systems in the BEO environment) to happen as soon as their is an LV capable of performing TOI (maybe as early as 2016-18).
The longer the program takes to show results, the more likely a funding cut due to loss of interest becomes. The only way around this is to start doing scientifically-dubiouis but press-worthy 'milestone' missions as soon as possible. The obvious first ones would be the first Orion lunar free-return fly-around, followed by an Apollo-8-style lunar orbiter, possibly including an EML-to-LLO transfer.
I am personally a fan of the idea of a 'Moonlab' at EML-1. This allow NASA (and its international partners) to develop experience in BEO flight (and life-support technologies) without getting too far from Earth if there are problems. It also gives a fairly easy-to-reach destination for multiple flights for those years when there are no departure windows to more distant destinations available.
I'm sure that mmjieri will thank me for mentioning this: An EML-1 lab would also be in range of commercial crew and cargo vehicles launched by F-9H- or EELV-class LVs.
Opposition class, chemical propulsion based Mars missions (flyby or short orbital) require about 450 days. 6 months = 180 days.
Correct.
On the other hand a conjunction-class chemical mission is 180 days (6 months) outbound, eighteen months on the surface and 180 days back. That's a total of 900 day mission duration with an enormous amount of science possible on the Martian surface, whilst the opposition-class allows you just 30 days in LMO and even less on the surface; literally not worth the investment in the transfer vehicle (IMHO, anyway). Conjunction-class also offers a shorter free-return abort orbit (2 years) and does't require the technically-challenging Venus flyby.
No reason for the Hab to be as expensive as Altair with its massive propulsion system. I do wonder however how Orion is going to move about since it depended on Altair for lunar orbit insertion. Anybody having some knowledge as to how they are planning to deal with that?
The simplest way to handle this would be to retain the EDS for as long as possible and use it for the orbit matching burns (it would be somewhat exaggerated to call it an 'orbital insertion' burn). I know that NASA has been thinking of using a Node/Centaur combo for the GEO construction mission. Maybe a version of Centaur, or maybe the ACES-41 four-engine Centaur evolution, could be used as a deep space propulsion module.
-
The basic idea is quite good in terms of both the NEO science itself and in building up a capacity for visiting Phobos and Deimos. For the people worrying so much about time scales, I think the almost 30 years of Shuttle operations prove you can sustain a single program for quite a long time. I see no difference if ISS ops gradually evolve in Flexible Path ops.
No reason for the Hab to be as expensive as Altair with its massive propulsion system. I do wonder however how Orion is going to move about since it depended on Altair for lunar orbit insertion. Anybody having some knowledge as to how they are planning to deal with that?
I think if the gap between ASTP and STS-1 had been 15+ years, it *would* have been cancelled. As it is, in the 15 years SSF/ISS took from inception to first-chunk in orbit, it came close to cancellation a number of times:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1440/1
I'd say ISS shows you have to be lucky, if you can't be quick.
I liked the dual-Orion NEO idea. Orion does have quite a bit of its own deltaV, since it has to do TEI from LLO, and I imagine that's what they're planning to use. I think an Orion-derived hab/airlock would provide valuable redundancy/lifeboat capability as well.
-
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.
Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.
Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well.
Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
-
To save time and prevent multi-posting, I'm going to post my responses here in one post.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Well... Maybe and maybe not. That I leave in the hands of those who know more about the subject than I.
FWIW, though, a Flexible Path hab/lab module wouldn't necessarily need a propulsion system of its own or the landing hardware and avionics. There may be some savings from that. Remember also that the hab module could possibly be utilised for many different missions including lunar orbiter, EML lab and even flyby missions for the inner planets. However, it is worth remembering that there will be mission equipment such as sensors for the encounter and surface experiment packages.
Remember that an asteroid 'lander' is something of a misnomer. The Orion's RCS system will be able to handle the ascent on many NEOs, which have only theoretical levels of gravity. If anything, the engineering would be more like that of an orbit-to-orbit cargo tug which needs to dock with a large object that does not have a docking interface.
It could end up cheaper.
I'll double up my response as well and post with yours. :)
That's my taken on it too. The Orion can perform much of the propulsion/station keeping, with the exception of the EDS, which we would need anyway for lunar/other ops.
So this hab module would be in between the EDS and Orion service module. Any lander that you brought along could be added on a 'side port' to the hab module. This was on Chris' last article. The lander doesn't need to be pressurized either, it could even be teleoperated, maybe for the first one or two. A pressurized lander for the moon is expensive because it incorporates all the features of a hab module/ascent-descent propulsion module/station keeping module all in one. The lunar rover was a tag-along for Apollo too, and we won't be roving on any NEO. Any space/mass available would be for scientific hardware.
It's an interesting objective (if chosen), which seems more and more likely.
-
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.
Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.
Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well.
Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
I don't know if I would go for it, because I don't think it's needed. The hab module just needs to have many of the components of a pre-exisiting ISS module, much like Zvezda.
-
To save time and prevent multi-posting, I'm going to post my responses here in one post.
Well, three prototypes for possible habs are in orbit right now.
We call them space stations.
Three prototypes? I know of only two: The ISS and Bigelow's Genesis-II. Unless China has already launched Tiangong-1, that is.
The ISS is really the wrong paradigm for a transit hab vehicle. I think that the Russian Salut-6-class (also used for Mir and ISS) is a good idea, as are the Transhab systems being developed by Bigelow. I understand that there are certain advantages to carbon composite hulls over metal hulls when dealing with high-energy radiation too.
What would my idea solution be? Probably something not dissimilar to the BA-330 Nautilus. Alternately something based on the ATV with a wider semi-rigid composite hab cylinder and maybe an EVA airlock too.
Just for the record, I know that Lockheed have been promoting an Orion/OrionLab combination with a 'cargo' Orion to act as a hab space for long-haul missions. I don't know how realistic that is.
Bigelow has two in orbit, Genesis I and II. And while the paradigm is not perfect, the concept is similar enough to learn from, and to build off of.
-
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.
Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.
Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well.
Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
I don't know if I would go for it, because I don't think it's needed. The hab module just needs to have many of the components of a pre-exisiting ISS module, much like Zvezda.
Wow, I just realized that Russia wants to go to asteroids as well. Maybe this could be a colaborative effort with the US providing the Orion & lander, with Russia providing the 'hab module'. Interesting. Has some merit (though I doubt the US would want colaboration on a mission like this...maybe the bigger missions like moon & Mars).
-
If your going to spend 6 months going somewhere, go to mars. It has water, and atmosphere and gravity. bumping around an asteriod in nearly zero G is going to have lots of problems associate with it.
It be neat but not worth doing more than once, ever.
Gravity wells are a B.
There is GREAT science to be done in Antartica, The north pole, Mariana Trench, and the top of Everest, but it doesn't get done. The reason is REAL science is done with an eye to maximize gain of knowledge.
More science can be done on Mars than on a NEO, but if a Mars mission costs 2-3 times as much, it need 2-3 times the science. I just don't think Moon and Mars missions live up to this standard.
In the very least the techniques used in a NEO mission would be IDENTICAL to the techniques used in the rescue of a failed Mars/Moon mission.
-
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.
Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.
Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well.
Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
I don't know if I would go for it, because I don't think it's needed. The hab module just needs to have many of the components of a pre-exisiting ISS module, much like Zvezda.
I like the idea of two Orions for redundancy. Even if you had a hab module two Orions make sense. The Orions could attach to the hab module at opposite ends. Six months is a long time.
Oh, and they should put back the toilet for sure!
-
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.
Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.
Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well.
Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
I don't know if I would go for it, because I don't think it's needed. The hab module just needs to have many of the components of a pre-exisiting ISS module, much like Zvezda.
I like the idea of two Orions for redundancy. Even if you had a hab module two Orions make sense. The Orions could attach to the hab module at opposite ends. Six months is a long time.
I know, but I'm thinking cost, added mass for the Orion & larger EDS, perhaps more protection for the Orion heat shields since their positions would most likely change...it's not an easy call to make.
Thinking again of the Russian Zvezda...I have to wonder if there is an internal political side to this. Russia has been making some very interesting mission announcements. I have to wonder if they have an inside line to the NASA discussions, and are making their own announcements to either be inclusive, or to claim they came up with it first (to either start a race, or to again be inclusive).
Not thinking conspiracy, thinking that maybe the Russians just want a colaboration since they can't afford it on their own and they seem to work well with the US. It might have legs...
-
If you could do the NEO thing with 2 Orions and no new hab module and lander-bumper module then I would go for it.
Two Orions with 3 astronauts for 6 months might be doable in terms of consumables and living space.
Maybe you could have a small trunk/airlock as well.
Get close to the NEO...shoot tethers into the thing and do a series of spacewalks.
I don't know if I would go for it, because I don't think it's needed. The hab module just needs to have many of the components of a pre-exisiting ISS module, much like Zvezda.
There are at least a couple of Almaz TKS vehicles in storage, supposedly available to Space Adventures, in addition to the apparently endless supply of VA capsules. I can't imagine it would cost more than a few billion dollars to refurbish one and launch it aboard a Proton to rendezvous with an Orion + EDS. There was supposed to be a lunar version of the VA capsule, so that could count as part of the lifeboat capability as well, and it all could be part of a joint US-Russian asteroid program. The Russians might like the idea because their "half" of the mission would be "cheap" half.
-
I understand. With respect to mass, I know if I were on this mission I would gladly accept a smaller hab module for a second Orion.
How many people would go on such a mission. 3-4?
-
I understand. With respect to mass, I know if I were on this mission I would gladly accept a smaller hab module for a second Orion.
How many people would go on such a mission. 3-4?
I would say 3-4 as well, since the curent Orion baseline fits with that quite nicely. Of course for the timelines we are talking about before launch, with a properly sized launcher they could add a lot back into Orion. Of course more people = less space, so to me 3 would be ideal, bt to 'sell' this as 'beyond Apollo', they might opt for 4 to show the more capable vehicle.
-
Umph. <shrug>
So what I'm hearing from this series of articles so far is an ongoing effort to justify building a BFR (Ares V, SD HLLV, Jupiter LV, or Exploration-Class) using the framework of the Flexible Path.
Is that right?
-
So what I'm hearing from this series of articles so far is an ongoing effort to justify building a BFR (Ares V, SD HLLV, Jupiter LV, or Exploration-Class) using the framework of the Flexible Path.
Is that right?
Um... No.
The justification already exists. However, this exercise appears to be to answer the question: "If we aren't going to the Moon or Mars, what else can we do with a HLV and the Orion?" I think it is reassuring that NASA still has so many blue-sky thinkers on hand.
-
So what I'm hearing from this series of articles so far is an ongoing effort to justify building a BFR (Ares V, SD HLLV, Jupiter LV, or Exploration-Class) using the framework of the Flexible Path.
Is that right?
Um... No.
The justification already exists. However, this exercise appears to be to answer the question: "If we aren't going to the Moon or Mars, what else can we do with a HLV and the Orion?" I think it is reassuring that NASA still has so many blue-sky thinkers on hand.
No, I think Norm is half right...they want to go to the moon and Mars, but they can't do it right away, so they need 'filler' missions, and a little zest (if you will) because they are starting to understand that the public bores too easily. They need 'different' missions, not the same 'sort' of mission.
Apollo taught them that (or should have, and maybe now are coming around to it).
-
If you have an HLLV, Orion, and a generic "mission module" (hab, RMS, airlock, however it's configured), Flexible Path is a series of missions, not just one from the menu. So GEO telescope, L1 excursion, lunar polar orbital survey mission, servicing mission to Webb, a couple of NEO missions, finally the big jaunt to Phobos... and somewhere along the way, you keep hoping the taxpayers and politicians decide they really do want to pay for landing on the Moon and/or Mars.
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Such a project would beg for a follow-on mission improving the technology and the capabilities -- and that would be a very special system. But we don't have to take a big jump when two smaller steps would get there, and would then result in two new telescopes too.
Just a thought... But probably a little OT here :)
Ross.
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Such a project would beg for a follow-on mission improving the technology and the capabilities -- and that would be a very special system. But we don't have to take a big jump when two smaller steps would get there, and would then result in two new telescopes too.
Just a thought... But probably a little OT here :)
Ross.
If I were going to pick unmanned "filler missions" for the HLLV, I'd want things like JIMO back. Then the Titan Airship. The Herschel Uranus Orbiter. The Triton Lander. Etc. I haven't been happy since Voyager-Mars was downsized to Viking and TOPS was downsized to (repurposed name) Voyager. The idea of using Saturn V to drop LM-sized landers on Mars has never quite slipped out of my dreams...
-
If I were going to pick unmanned "filler missions" for the HLLV, I'd want things like JIMO back. Then the Titan Airship. The Herschel Uranus Orbiter. The Triton Lander. Etc. I haven't been happy since Voyager-Mars was downsized to Viking and TOPS was downsized to (repurposed name) Voyager. The idea of using Saturn V to drop LM-sized landers on Mars has never quite slipped out of my dreams...
Oh yes. I'd love to see those, too. Heck, I'd be happy if the HSF budget were slashed, as long as the money was then transferred to UMSF missions like this (which, ofc, isn't the way the real world works).
-
I liked the part in the article where it was mentioned that the Orion's high gain antenna could double as a radar system.
I don't think the habitat module would have to be anywhere near as complex as the Altair. As far as I can tell it needs to preform only three things; providing life support for six months, provide an airlock, and mission specific sensors and equipment.
Since it doesn't need to land if the astronauts use MMUs no landing gear are needed. Also because it will most likely be launched to orbit with either the Orion or the EDS it needs no RCS. It would be docked to the Orion which can provide all the propulsive needs of the complex. An extra set of solar panels might be needed to augment the power generated by the Orion. Does this seam reasonable of have I missed some other features that would be necessary?
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
It depends on how much technology the National Reconnaissance Office would be willing to share. ;) It is an interesting idea. Shoot a giant telescope in to space with the hardware necessary to power and point the thing. Use basic sensors at first and replace with upgrades as they become available. Unfortunately my WAG is it would still be over a billion dollars.
-
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
It depends on how much technology the National Reconnaissance Office would be willing to share. ;) It is an interesting idea. Shoot a giant telescope in to space with the hardware necessary to power and point the thing. Use basic sensors at first and replace with upgrades as they become available. Unfortunately my WAG is it would still be over a billion dollars.
Not quite what I'm envisioning.
5 years from now, launch a 'basic' Block-I model.
3 years later launch another telescope -- a whole second unit -- with better electronics in a Block-II model.
Use *both*, together, at the same time. Sure, one will get better pictures than the other, but you're still covering twice as much sky.
Better still, make a production line and churn one of these out every year after that, continually upgrading the systems as we go and adding more units to the 'fleet'. When one fails, it is simply retired & replaced and is *NOT* repaired.
Ross.
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Ross.
My suggestion would be a 'duplicate' Hubble.
1) We already built one. I think the second mirror is gone now, but it shouldn't be too hard to build a new one (the one with the correct curvature that is...) ;)
2) We already have all the specs for the instruments, so build a second set, or if possible & available, use any of Hubble's ground spares.
3) It can use all the existing ground systems for Hubble, so we may only need a few extra ground personnel.
4) If Hubble finally does come to pass, since the systems are identical, there is no learning curve, and the people can transition seamlessly to the new one(s).
I would say 1/3 the cost of Hubble, whatever that was, since the engineering is already done.
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Ross.
My suggestion would be a 'duplicate' Hubble.
1) We already built one. I think the second mirror is gone now, but it shouldn't be too hard to build a new one (the one with the correct curvature that is...) ;)
2) We already have all the specs for the instruments, so build a second set, or if possible & available, use any of Hubble's ground spares.
3) It can use all the existing ground systems for Hubble, so we may only need a few extra ground personnel.
4) If Hubble finally does come to pass, since the systems are identical, there is no learning curve, and the people can transition seamlessly to the new one(s).
I would say 1/3 the cost of Hubble, whatever that was, since the engineering is already done.
This was actually a viable option prior to HST SM-04. Johns Hopkins proposed a telescope called the Hubble Origins Probe (HOP) that would have been assembled from the SM-04 hardware and other assorted spares. It would have cost around $1 billion, including Atlas V launch. But now that SM-04 is complete, it will cost a lot more. I don't think it can be done for 1/3 of the Hubble price (1/3 of $4 billion in today's dollars).
-
Cool Jorge, thanks for that info.
Yeah, 1/3 seemed a little light, but it's not bad...even at 1/2 it's a bargain, considering the alternatives, which would take more time, and more money.
-
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
It depends on how much technology the National Reconnaissance Office would be willing to share. ;) It is an interesting idea. Shoot a giant telescope in to space with the hardware necessary to power and point the thing. Use basic sensors at first and replace with upgrades as they become available. Unfortunately my WAG is it would still be over a billion dollars.
Not quite what I'm envisioning.
5 years from now, launch a 'basic' Block-I model.
3 years later launch another telescope -- a whole second unit -- with better electronics in a Block-II model.
Use *both*, together, at the same time. Sure, one will get better pictures than the other, but you're still covering twice as much sky.
Better still, make a production line and churn one of these out every year after that, continually upgrading the systems as we go and adding more units to the 'fleet'. When one fails, it is simply retired & replaced and is *NOT* repaired.
Ross.
I like this idea. build them like you build a car, on a production line. each year, maybe a couple of small upgrades and that it! I have a launcher that can put over 110 tons into orbit--secondary payload. :-0
Every x years..another one pops up, used in tandem or separately--don't you think that would get people interested in space? This reminds me of another company "build a little, fly a little". I would also cap it so that each telescope could not be more than $200 million. I would also open it up so that each year there is a competition between universities that at least 1 sensor that NASA would pick would come from the competition. This would get the universities involved, in knowing that this year there instrument may not fly, but there is a chance if they improve it that it will fly on another telescope.
-
Not quite what I'm envisioning.
5 years from now, launch a 'basic' Block-I model.
3 years later launch another telescope -- a whole second unit -- with better electronics in a Block-II model.
Use *both*, together, at the same time. Sure, one will get better pictures than the other, but you're still covering twice as much sky.
Better still, make a production line and churn one of these out every year after that, continually upgrading the systems as we go and adding more units to the 'fleet'. When one fails, it is simply retired & replaced and is *NOT* repaired.
Ross.
Doesn't this approach lead to very high operational costs associated with all the ground crews using and maintaining the instruments? I thought that portion of the HST expenditures was pretty significant.
-
While we're talking about building copies of existing spacecraft on an assy line, they should build a bunch more Mars rovers like Spirit and Oppy.
These workhorses have more than proven themselves. I'd love to see a dozen of these puppies traversing Mars.
-
This article, and the other suggested missions on the "flexible path" idea are great ideas, on paper.
But they are nothing but paper, that is all they will ever be, and that is what is so discouraging. Dollars to donuts NASA has stacks and stacks of these kind of missions in an archive somewhere, where generations of people from vonBraun on have dreamed and thought and planned and hoped that something good could happen in space.
But it is not going to happen. None of this stuff is going to happen, so let's just use the ISS well until 2020, imperfect as it is. Then let's watch the next "green jobs" type fad or the next designer disease or some other cause suck up all the time and cash which could have been used to do something real for all humanity.
We can sit back and say "I told you so" when all the cash gets wasted on something of no importance, because that is all that is going to happen. As opposed to other posters, I strongly believe it was the Democrats, and not the Republicans who screwed up NASA. Sadly, at this point it doesn't really matter.
-
We can sit back and say "I told you so" when all the cash gets wasted on something of no importance, because that is all that is going to happen. As opposed to other posters, I strongly believe it was the Democrats, and not the Republicans who screwed up NASA. Sadly, at this point it doesn't really matter.
Bush absolutely destroyed NASA, but I'm sure you'll just ignore that and believe illegal aliens are the cause of all America's problems. But it isn't just Bush either, as many have stated here, the issue is far more complicated. Having said that, Obama may be in position to correct the many wrongs of the past, a democrat no less :P
-
No we don't. This will not turn into a politics debate.
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
I think it has more to do with the developmental cost of Altair (which will be postponed because of lack of money due to the ISS extension). Although I don't know what the developmental cost of the space hab module would be.
-
This article, and the other suggested missions on the "flexible path" idea are great ideas, on paper.
But they are nothing but paper, that is all they will ever be, and that is what is so discouraging. Dollars to donuts NASA has stacks and stacks of these kind of missions in an archive somewhere, where generations of people from vonBraun on have dreamed and thought and planned and hoped that something good could happen in space.
But it is not going to happen. None of this stuff is going to happen, so let's just use the ISS well until 2020, imperfect as it is. Then let's watch the next "green jobs" type fad or the next designer disease or some other cause suck up all the time and cash which could have been used to do something real for all humanity.
Which is why international cooperation is the way to go, even though it seems to enrage some people here. Yes, it tends to delay things and make them more expensive. Yes, we have to wait on unreliable partners. But it also locks plans "in place" once the agreements have been signed, preventing a future administration from easily cancelling them and funelling the money to their newest pet project. Without international agreements, ISS would never have been built and NASA would still be doing short LEO-stints in the Shuttle (not returning to the moon as ISS-haters seem to think)
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Ross.
My suggestion would be a 'duplicate' Hubble.
1) We already built one. I think the second mirror is gone now, but it shouldn't be too hard to build a new one (the one with the correct curvature that is...) ;)
2) We already have all the specs for the instruments, so build a second set, or if possible & available, use any of Hubble's ground spares.
3) It can use all the existing ground systems for Hubble, so we may only need a few extra ground personnel.
4) If Hubble finally does come to pass, since the systems are identical, there is no learning curve, and the people can transition seamlessly to the new one(s).
I would say 1/3 the cost of Hubble, whatever that was, since the engineering is already done.
You are forgetting this is looking for a problem to be solved by a HLV. A Hubble size telescope could be launched by an EELV, with margin.
Anyway, there is no budget, again. Folks are just dreaming. Five years is completely unrealistic, even for a ground based telescope. You need instruments and such, pointing, there are very tight tolerances to be in focus ... heck, first you need a 8.2m mirror, they are not sitting on the shelf.
Once your HLV is working and SMDs budget is back there is once has been in buying power, and there is a reasonable expectation of it growing even more, let us talk about this again. Circa 2020 at the earliest.
Analyst
-
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Considering the engineering effort, time schedule and costs to get a 3.5m single mirror for Herschel, I doubt a 8.2m single mirror could be constructed on the cheap or quickly. This would be an engineering effort on a scale not yet seen when it comes to space telescopes, precision is key in this area of engineering and with a 8.2m diameter mirror the material scientists will get into a lot of problems.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Who cares about what scientists want, anyway? :D
When has NASA last listened to a scientist?
If NASA were really interested in doing science only, then there would be no HSF program, and that money would be used for a massive robotic exploration program instead.
However, this will never happen. Even an anti-HSF scientist actually became NASA administrator and managed to push this through. Congress would just slash the NASA budget and send those funds somewhere else.
NASA needs HSF to get political support. NASA needs an impressive BFR because, lets just face it, a Shuttle launch or a Saturn V launch is much more impressive and looks better on TV than a Delta launch...
-
NASA needs HSF to get political support. NASA needs an impressive BFR because, lets just face it, a Shuttle launch or a Saturn V launch is much more impressive and looks better on TV than a Delta launch...
NASA would be more like ESA if its HSF part is stripped down to a bare minimum. NASA would be smaller of course, the question is whether this were so bad.
But the old discussion HSF vs. non-HSF is OT here.
Going back to the topic, Flexible Path missions to NEOs shouldn't be carried out in the fashion suggested here. Rather than having robotic precursor missions and making NEO missions major endevours with a single convenient target in mind, NASA should outline reference missions for a dozen NEOs in the 2020-2030 timeframe. All these reference missions should be able to be carried out with the same hardware. As a consequence NEO missions could be carried out at any convenient point of time in that decade.
However the focus of any Flexible Path program should be Phobos and Deimos. That's were we want to go, because that's where Mars is.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
You can use a 100mt HLV for science missions. But your payloads will not be cheap nor quickly developed. Expect several billion dollars per payload and 10-15 years development time.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
-
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
I trust this is sarcasm.
The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.
Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).
Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures.
-
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
I trust this is sarcasm.
The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.
Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).
Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures.
Why so late? DIRECT had such a flyby in '15 in it's profile.
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
Its beautiful,
flexible path habs would be an ISS follow on mission.The international community builds the habs along with "us". Even a lunar lander could be built by the international community.We build the launcher and Orion
(A cheap launcher).
-
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
I trust this is sarcasm.
The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.
Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).
Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures.
Your second sentence was my actual point, the sarcasm intended to point out this "HSF eats unmanned planetary exploration" argument is a zer-sum-game argument, and ultimately a losers' argument. No one here has any answers to the underlying "why" questions for anything they want to do, whether its, "toy cars on Mars" or "big honking rockets."
-
William, there are answers, however I believe they are more existential in nature than utilitarian.
Identity driven motivations, not utility driven motivations.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
Getting some scientists aboard could help get some long range robot missions launched, say, to the Kuiper Belt perhaps. Using a more powerful rocket could get the probe there quicker, shorter time scales.
Plus the scientists could analyze the results within their lifetimes.
-
If I were going to pick unmanned "filler missions" for the HLLV, I'd want things like JIMO back. Then the Titan Airship. The Herschel Uranus Orbiter. The Triton Lander. Etc. I haven't been happy since Voyager-Mars was downsized to Viking and TOPS was downsized to (repurposed name) Voyager. The idea of using Saturn V to drop LM-sized landers on Mars has never quite slipped out of my dreams...
Oh yes. I'd love to see those, too. Heck, I'd be happy if the HSF budget were slashed, as long as the money was then transferred to UMSF missions like this (which, ofc, isn't the way the real world works).
TOTALLY AGREE!!! There is SO much more SCIENCE that we can and SHOULD be doing with robotic probes, which in many ways, are necessary precursors to maximize the effectiveness and science return of a manned mission... Even on the moon, there is STILL TONS AND TONS of research that could be done by even rather modest teleoperated rovers, and that SHOULD be done before a manned return is contemplated, let alone performed. There's nothing to say that we may miss the 'gold mine' of information return possible from a human mission just because we 'landed in the wrong place' where the intelligent use of rovers and robotic probes could easily have done the forerunner work for us and let us direct the manned efforts at the most promising sites. This goes DOUBLE for Mars!
Apollo didn't have the time to perform much in the way of precursors, other than the minimum necessary for mapping (Ranger and Lunar Orbiter) and to make sure the surface wasn't 50 foot deep dust powder that couldn't be landed on (Surveyor) which was the most basic 'requirement' for a precursor mission to establish a lunar landing was possible. We shouldn't follow that paradigm this time-- do the robotic science first, so you know where best to put your boots on the ground for maximum return!
And for the outer solar system, which we're quite unlikely to visit until the end of this century, if at all, we SHOULD be doing the robotic missions that we can. Even at Jupiter, the radiation levels are SO high that even if we could get a manned mission there, other than teleoperation of robotic probes, there would be little point. The radiation levels are too high for a Europa landing (FWIUnderstand) and Io would probably be too dangerous due to constant volcanism, and radiation. Saturn is TWICE as far away and highly unlikely to be targeted for a manned mission in this century, barring a MAJOR leap forward in propulsion capabilities, among others. SO, we SHOULD be doing the robotic exploration that we can at these sites, because manned missions may never be feasible anyway.
Besides, we need to KNOW... to LEARN... and the pictures would be FANTASTIC!!! Imagine the boost in public interest for the space program from a Titan airship beaming pictures back to Earth, periodically lowering a gondola of instruments/cameras to the surface (solid and LIQUID which nobody has ever seen anywhere else-- NOT JUST DUST AND ROCKS!!!) JIMO could tell us SO much... as could Herschel...
JMHO... OL JR :)
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
Well, Analyst has a point... without the $$$ to develop those possibilities into hardware and make use of the HLV capability, it's all just dreams...
That's why Ares I/V make NO sense-- no budget left to do a damn thing with them! So what's the point?? OL JR :)
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
Well, Analyst has a point... without the $$$ to develop those possibilities into hardware and make use of the HLV capability, it's all just dreams...
Well, they could make missions like the MSL more realistic due to mass budgets. Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints. Sure the launcher costs more, but it frees your hands a little more. I know we discussed this at length in another thread, but at least there would be more flexibility now (assuming no commercial gets the opportunity to build a bigger rocket).
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money! An asteroid visit has the 'cheapest cost of entry', but how cheap is that? I'm going to unashamedly cheer for any BEO exploration that stands a hope of getting funding. That said 2025 is a dissapointingly (and perhaps dangerously) long way off. I like the idea of lunar orbits and GEO construction as gap fillers...but what extra costs would they bring?
I think this will be decided by money and politics (stating the obvious I know), not by scientific merit.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
It won't work. No budget. And we are not talking some small increases, but big spending. For starters: Double the SMD budget. Won't happen.
Analyst
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
It won't work. No budget. And we are not talking some small increases, but big spending. For starters: Double the SMD budget. Won't happen.
Analyst
Well, I guess you'll have to ask Ross why he wants to "appease the scientists."
I'm sure he might have some info even you might not have.
But I see why you have pessimism on this, it's hard not to be cynical about the politics.
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
If I design a mission that can't be flown on any existing or near future (one that NASA is really confident will fly in a reasonable time) launch vehicle, why in the world would NASA fund me? They only fund missions that fit. Volume and mass constraints are just as real and as much trouble as budgetary, feature requirement, and risk constraints, especially since these constraints interact with each other.
For example, as I understand it, the MER missions required the unusual conjunction with Mars that had slightly lower than usual delta v. They wouldn't have made a normal Mars window without shaving some mass (either raising cost or losing some functionality). I believe most deep space probes are similarly mass constrained because they attempt to wring as much delta v out of the launch vehicle and boosters as possible. A number of the DoD missions are volume/fairing size constrained as was the Hubble telescope (and most other Great Observatories) and numerous ISS structural components.
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money!
Thanks! And you and me both! I was kinda expecting them to name the presentation "things we could do with a blank check book".
I still like it as this is big time NASA forward thinking, but I also question if this Augustine Review related thinking has come a bit too late, as it would fit better about four years ago, as opposed to the final days (at present) of the US' only manned heavy lifter, a brilliant and hugely capable vehicle.
Bar the fact they are expensive (but what vehicles aren't - never mind resuable), not particularly safe (but a hell of a lot safer than before and what is "safe") and restricted to LEO (everything we're doing is LEO - like it or not - for the next 10 years), I wish there was a related presentation to say "maybe we should delay giving up what we have until we know what we're going to be doing afterwards".
Gap closure should be priority number one and the only way to close the gap is from the left, not least when there's a major role to fulfil if ISS is extended to 2020 if you want to get your $100 billion worth, when CRS/COTS appears to be failing to get anywhere near their milestones and the US have to rely on a Russian government behaving for over half a decade.
Otherwise, there's some exciting future potential, but will the agency survive what is currently five to seven years of outsourcing? Will the appetite still be there to fund these proposals when NASA's lost most of its public interest and support with no Shuttle and nothing much else going on with HSF?
I just hope someone - who knows who he is - doesn't require a wake up call over this and has shown some internal fighting to protect the present, because without that I question if there is a future.
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money!
Thanks! And you and me both! I was kinda expecting them to name the presentation "things we could do with a blank check book".
I still like it as this is big time NASA forward thinking, but I also question if this Augustine Review related thinking has come a bit too late, as it would fit better about four years ago, as opposed to the final days (at present) of the US' only manned heavy lifter, a brilliant and hugely capable vehicle.
Bar the fact they are expensive (but what vehicles aren't - never mind resuable), not particularly safe (but a hell of a lot safer than before and what is "safe") and restricted to LEO (everything we're doing is LEO - like it or not - for the next 10 years), I wish there was a related presentation to say "maybe we should delay giving up what we have until we know what we're going to be doing afterwards".
Gap closure should be priority number one and the only way to close the gap is from the left, not least when there's a major role to fulfil if ISS is extended to 2020 if you want to get your $100 billion worth, when CRS/COTS appears to be failing to get anywhere near their milestones and the US have to rely on a Russian government behaving for over half a decade.
Otherwise, there's some exciting future potential, but will the agency survive what is currently five to seven years of outsourcing? Will the appetite still be there to fund these proposals when NASA's lost most of its public interest and support with no Shuttle and nothing much else going on with HSF?
I just hope someone - who knows who he is - doesn't require a wake up call over this and has shown some internal fighting to protect the present, because without that I question if there is a future.
CONCUR!
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
It won't work. No budget. And we are not talking some small increases, but big spending. For starters: Double the SMD budget. Won't happen.
Analyst
Well, I guess you'll have to ask Ross why he wants to "appease the scientists."
I'm sure he might have some info even you might not have.
But I see why you have pessimism on this, it's hard not to be cynical about the politics.
Not to speak on Ross' behalf, but if this were me, there would be 2 points.
1) I feel Obama will try and open the link between these two 'bodies' to get more science out of of capabilities. When you have a bunch of missions that then 'appease' what scientists would be looking for (planetary science, astrophysics, and the like) then you have them on board with your rocket.
2) To try and get more money out of Congress, the rocket has to (or should) do more than just HSF. If we can 'duplicate' (in some non-existing commercial capable ways) what the shuttle did (or has done) over its career, it helps sell the idea of what this rocket can do. Liek Gen Krantz said "I'm not interesting of what it was designed to do, I want to know what it can do", or something to that effect.
Ross is going to be at NASA giving a presentation at the end of the month, so I'm sure he's looking for ideas to put into a powerpoint presentation. Like the Augustine Commission presentation, covering the 'bases' helps to sell the idea, or sell it against the competition.
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
JIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
JIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
At the time JIMO's preliminary design contract was canceled (2005), an HLV was scheduled to be available in 2017 for a launch. JIMO was primarily canceled because there was no funding for it going forward.
-
Thanks for the fill-in William.
I'm not saying there will be 'tons' of missions that could take advantage of this, because clearly the difference in launcher costs would most likely be prohibitive. But if it made the difference in a Flagship class mission flying or not, there might be some money available from other projects.
I think the biggest savings would come from tele-operated robots (or even unmanned ones like Spirit & Opportunity) as a tag-along to a manned mission.
-
Thanks for the fill-in William.
I'm not saying there will be 'tons' of missions that could take advantage of this, because clearly the difference in launcher costs would most likely be prohibitive. But if it made the difference in a Flagship class mission flying or not, there might be some money available from other projects.
I think the biggest savings would come from tele-operated robots (or even unmanned ones like Spirit & Opportunity) as a tag-along to a manned mission.
Somebody here (Jim?) has pointed out payloads often cost more than the LVs they ride on. Wasn't Cassini around $3bln? So I could easily imagine a planetary probe that required an Ares V or J246SH in the billions, the cost of the LV not amount to a very big percentage of the whole. That's the other half of the problem (and it is for HSF, too).
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
JIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
At the time JIMO's preliminary design contract was canceled (2005), an HLV was scheduled to be available in 2017 for a launch. JIMO was primarily canceled because there was no funding for it going forward.
You said "existing launch vehicle." For where I sit, Arev V as planned in 2005 was always going to be a paper rocket. Yes, no funding, but also that little problem of multiple DIVH launches.
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Such a project would beg for a follow-on mission improving the technology and the capabilities -- and that would be a very special system. But we don't have to take a big jump when two smaller steps would get there, and would then result in two new telescopes too.
Just a thought... But probably a little OT here :)
Ross.
Hi Ross -
I'm going to go on here for a bit. The paradigm for manned flight is changing. In the 1950's it was based on an Earth-like Mars and unrealistically low transportation costs.
Mars in now known not to be Earth-like, and the radiation loads make it unlikely that it could even be terra-formed. Further, the discovery of new martian fossils has increased the risk to Earth from back contamination, or at least made clear the necessity of taking time to thoroughly checking out the potential hazard.
The new driver is the impact hazard, and whether dealing with that will require large free based space telescopes or Moon based instruments for detection is an open question. But there is little doubt that ach new telescope will reveal the hazard to be far more serious than earlier thought.
Most likely the best systems would be Moon based, requiring the use of lunar orbit propellant depots and landing frames for their construction. This project may be international, or China may do it itself.
Probes to determine asteroid and comet fragment composition, whether manned or unmanned will be necessary, and any mitigation method will require the use of the largest launch vehicles around, which I hope is Direct.
After ISS has served its purpose as an Earth-orbit laboratory, it may be used to test either closed loop life support systems, or power beaming from space, either in Earth orbit or in Lunar orbit.
While manned Mars flight enthusiasts are dedicated to Ares 5 use for Zubrin's Mars Direct architecture, IMO that architecture is no more realistic than the Ares1/Ares5 architecture. I think it far more likely that something along the lines of Dr. Aldrin's cyclers would have a better chance of working.
Thanks for your work on Directt, and Good Luck!
-
I know the HST talk in this thread is OT (mods - spin off into a new thread if warranted)
but.....
- HST was a really a modified KH-11 spy sat with a 2.4m mirror
- a Kodak produced backup 2.4m mirror without the optical distortion present in the original Perkin-Elmer mirror is on permanent display at the Smithsonian
- LM produced the HST, KH-11, and all known spy-sat followups (speculated to be called KH-12 and KH-12-8X or KH-13)
- the followups to KH-11 are rumored to have larger mirrors - around 3m
- Boeing won a contract to produce a next-gen "FIA" spysat, but lost it in 2005 after what the NY Times called "perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects."
- LM has since been asked to restart production of a modernized "KH" series of satellites based on their previous models, and there is likely a bit of a rush to get this done before the lifespan of the existing spy-sats is reached.
- the previous KH series were launched on Titan IV, which no longer exists - presumably the Delta IV-H would be the launch vehicle for new spy sats.
Which all leads to this question:
How easy/fast/cheap would it be for LM to produce a new HST replacement on the same production line as these modernized KH satellites?
-
I don't believe there is a production line. Only one new bird was made from leftover spare parts.
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money!
Thanks! And you and me both! I was kinda expecting them to name the presentation "things we could do with a blank check book".
I still like it as this is big time NASA forward thinking, but I also question if this Augustine Review related thinking has come a bit too late, as it would fit better about four years ago, as opposed to the final days (at present) of the US' only manned heavy lifter, a brilliant and hugely capable vehicle.
Bar the fact they are expensive (but what vehicles aren't - never mind resuable), not particularly safe (but a hell of a lot safer than before and what is "safe") and restricted to LEO (everything we're doing is LEO - like it or not - for the next 10 years), I wish there was a related presentation to say "maybe we should delay giving up what we have until we know what we're going to be doing afterwards".
Gap closure should be priority number one and the only way to close the gap is from the left, not least when there's a major role to fulfil if ISS is extended to 2020 if you want to get your $100 billion worth, when CRS/COTS appears to be failing to get anywhere near their milestones and the US have to rely on a Russian government behaving for over half a decade.
Otherwise, there's some exciting future potential, but will the agency survive what is currently five to seven years of outsourcing? Will the appetite still be there to fund these proposals when NASA's lost most of its public interest and support with no Shuttle and nothing much else going on with HSF?
I just hope someone - who knows who he is - doesn't require a wake up call over this and has shown some internal fighting to protect the present, because without that I question if there is a future.
The money issue is tied to the ISS extension. Once the ISS is deorbited, I would imagine that new funds for human exploration become available. First because you don't have to pay for the maintainance of the ISS. Secondly because you stop paying for commercial crew and cargo to ISS.
Is Ares V more expensive than the Shuttle? Is the hardware for a NEO mission more expensive than the ISS. I would imagine that the contributions of international partners (except perhaps Russia) to ISS could also go to BEO.
-
The article linked from wikipedia says nothing about multiple launches being a problem, just that JIMO was very expensive, JWST is sucking up tons of money, and that the CLV was supposed to have IOC in 2014.
-
The money issue is tied to the ISS extension. Once the ISS is deorbited, I would imagine that new funds for human exploration become available. First because you don't have to pay for the maintainance of the ISS. Secondly because you stop paying for commercial crew and cargo to ISS.
Try the opposite. When the ISS is deorbited the development money is transferred from LV development to ISS2 development.
Even if the new spacestation is rented the operations money has to come from somewhere.
-
What do you mean by ISS2?
-
1. Try the opposite. When the ISS is deorbited the development money is transferred from LV development to ISS2 development.
2. Even if the new spacestation is rented the operations money has to come from somewhere.
1. There isn't going to be an ISS2
2. It will between 2 and 3 magnitudes cheaper. NASA can pay by the experiment vs paying for a whole station
-
What do you mean by ISS2?
Some sort of NASA operated manned LEO space station. There are 10 years to work out the details.
-
From the looks of this presentation, it seems that they would bring the space habitat with them to the asteroid, etc. Spending six months on Orion would be impossible for the astronauts.
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Speaking for myself, kraisee is just talking to the scientists involved in the various NASA projects underway over the last few years and integrating what they're asking for into a better, more thoroughly thought-out plan than he has seen anywhere else to date.
And kraisee is also wondering exactly where you were in the room during these discussions, in order to be able to claim to speak with any authority about any of them? Oh, that's right: You weren't in the room and didn't take part. Never mind then...
Ross.
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
JIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
At the time JIMO's preliminary design contract was canceled (2005), an HLV was scheduled to be available in 2017 for a launch. JIMO was primarily canceled because there was no funding for it going forward.
You said "existing launch vehicle." For where I sit, Arev V as planned in 2005 was always going to be a paper rocket. Yes, no funding, but also that little problem of multiple DIVH launches.
My point was a. there was an HLV planed to be online by the date of launch, but the preliminary design of the mission didn't baseline it because it was too big, too costly and too uncertain to be available and b. JIMO was canceled due to funding, not due to mass and/or volume constraints on launch vehicles (oddly enough, JIMO - a prime example of an exploration mission - was canceled because funds were needed for Constellation, an exploration initiative; and while JIMO could right now be in development already, Constellation might be considering a NEO flight for a lot more money than JIMO was supposed to cost).
I have yet to hear of an example of any funded mission that required or requires an HLV due to mass or volume constraints.
-
kraisee, you asking the scientists for their dreams does not make these real, nor does it generate any funds. Sure they have dreams: Big telescopes, large interplanetary probes. So have I. Does not make it realistic. JWST will launch 25 years after HST, a Europa orbiter (maybe) 25 years after Cassini. These are the intervalls of flagship missions in the $3 to $4.5 billion class, using EELV class launch vehicles. Now show me any realistic funding source for project being three or four times as big? Any? And no – the costs don’t come done because of going bigger.
(1) For example, as I understand it, the MER missions required the unusual conjunction with Mars that had slightly lower than usual delta v. They wouldn't have made a normal Mars window without shaving some mass (either raising cost or losing some functionality).
(2) I believe most deep space probes are similarly mass constrained because they attempt to wring as much delta v out of the launch vehicle and boosters as possible.
(3) A number of the DoD missions are volume/fairing size constrained as was the Hubble telescope (and most other Great Observatories) and numerous ISS structural components.
(1) Correct. And because of this they had to make it in 2003. There wasn’t the budget for a larger launcher or for a delay to 2005.
(2) And yet they avoid the next biggest launcher like the plague, fighting for every (Atlas V or Delta II) SBR less. Because they would lose more science by going to the next larger vehicle when they would gain by relaxing mass constraints a bit. Understandable given a fixed budget to be devided between mission/science and launch.
(3) I don’t know about DoD, and I doubt you know. As for HST: Simply wrong. It went from a 3m mirror to 2.4m for – surprise – budgetary reasons. Compton and Chandra too were budget limited, although you could argue both were very heavy and Chandra used the whole payload bay. But again: Who would have paid for them being any bigger? Spitzer is a prime example (as are the EOS satellites) for budget induced downscaling: From Shuttle to Titan IV to Atlas II to finally Delta II. Big has simply not been affordable. And Spitzer still cost $1 billion.
JIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
JIMO was never really funded, I am not sure it ever entered phase A. It would have been a $15 to 20 billion project. A pie in the sky from the beginning. A HLV would launch it in one piece, but a HLV would not have magically made the funding available. And the price tag would not have gone down because using a HLV. The problems were massive: Reactor, engines, rediation, instruments …
Somebody here (Jim?) has pointed out payloads often cost more than the LVs they ride on. Wasn't Cassini around $3bln? So I could easily imagine a planetary probe that required an Ares V or J246SH in the billions, the cost of the LV not amount to a very big percentage of the whole. That's the other half of the problem (and it is for HSF, too).
I would go as far and say payloads always cost more than the launchers they use, with launch being about 20 to 30% (ballpark).
And you are pointing out exaxtly the problem many folks here like to ignore: Who pays for the payloads (and this being true for HSF too)? They think having a big launch vehicle is all there needed. Yet Delta IVH is barely used, and never for non militaray payloads. Titan IV was used once for a non military payload. Science missions barely use the larger EELVs, they were happy with Delta II, they often just use Pegasus. Why? Not because there aren’t bigger vehicles - there are today - but because they don’t have the budget for going bigger. A HLV won’t change anything in this equation.
So everyone who talks about using a HLV for science mission should consider the above – in particular the budget environment – and rethink his position.
Analyst
-
Analyst, I see no disagreement with my quote. I did note these missions were cost constrained. And while I don't know a lot about DoD missions, I do know that they need the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy for some reason other than generating business for ULA. It's certainly not cost or reliability driving that decision.
As for being "realistic", it's worth noting that making your project a little cheaper won't make it more real. An order of magnitude drop might make the project more likely to be funded, but much smaller changes won't. Funding is just another thing to fill up, like available payload size.
-
kraisee, you asking the scientists for their dreams does not make these real, nor does it generate any funds.
...
So everyone who talks about using a HLV for science mission should consider the above – in particular the budget environment – and rethink his position.
Analyst
(the following is a personal observation, nothing more)
For everything Ross & the Direct team have been doing, to get this far and have their 'concept' as a leading contender is beyond phenominal.
It looks to me like Ross is HELPING to sell the 'concept', but also to bring the scientists on board. Right now, it seems much of what NASA & the politicians have been able to do is alienate one another from what could actually be accomplished in the HSF endeavour. Everyone seems to be falling over one another in a bid to make it to the top of the heap.
Now whether he is going to be there just to sell heavy lift, or sell Jupiter, or sell 'Direct', well, that's his call to make, and I for one will not stand in the way, or criticize his actions, which to date have been beyond exemplary considering where we were, and where we are now. If he can pull ANYTHING off to the betterment of NASA, that's kudos in my book. At least SOMEONE is doing something about this sad state.
What do we lose if we get scientists to back this 'concept' of a rocket with so much potential: I suppose nothing, and you will still have the status quo where science missions fly of EELVs or whatever.
What do we gain if the scientists back this 'concept': Either the same deal (nothing), but I would bet it's more than a few voices in favour of the PoR, which is even more useless to them, since it offers NOTHING. They definitely couldn't afford the launcher, but NASA would have no money, and may in fact have to steal more from Peter to pay Paul for the development of the Ares V.
Now there is a case that if we lose HSF, we could gain more in science missions, but I'll leave that one alone, because then I think we are losing more than what we gain.
So, you go Ross, with my blessings and best wishes.
-
What do we lose if we get scientists to back this 'concept' of a rocket with so much potential.
The best thing that can happen to scientists is that NASA's HSF budget shrinks. Please note that this is my opinion, something evidently not shared by everyone. One thing is however clear and should be acknowledged by everyone, the more NASA's focus is on science, technology and robotic exploration, the more money scientists can get, even if that means that overall NASA has a (much) smaller budget. This holds true for basically every funding decision in this world, the bigger the share of a taxpayer funded program within a public organization, the more prominent it is and the higher the likelihood is that it can get funded overall (political bargaining is mostly focused on the big programs within NASA that bring a lot of jobs to certain states, not the small programs).
HSF has been limited to microgravity research with very low cost-benefit profiles since the inception of spaceflight, with the exception of a few days of beyond LEO exploration on the surface of another planetary body which resulted in sizable knowledge gains in a very small area of science (lunar geology). Microgravity research and limited beyond LEO geology exploration will be all there is for the foreseeable future (next 3 decades = a professional lifetime) at any given HSF budget.
It is clear that there are no scientific payloads that will or can be funded that require a 100mt HLV. It is also clear that the development and operations of an HLV means NASA's HSF focus will remain as is (2/3rds of NASA => HSF) for the next decades, which is not good for the actual scientists' projects as explained above (while good for contractors and engineers of course). Objectively, scientists who want to maximize the science done in space should hope that no HLV is funded at all.
-
...with the exception of a few days of beyond LEO exploration on the surface of another planetary body which resulted in sizable knowledge gains in a very small area of science (lunar geology). Microgravity research and limited beyond LEO geology exploration will be all there is for the foreseeable future (next 3 decades = a professional lifetime) at any given HSF budget.
It is clear that there are no scientific payloads that will or can be funded that require a 100mt HLV. It is also clear that the development and operations of an HLV means NASA's HSF focus will remain as is (2/3rds of NASA => HSF) for the next decades, which is not good for the actual scientists' projects as explained above (while good for contractors and engineers of course). Objectively, scientists who want to maximize the science done in space should hope that no HLV is funded at all.
Umm..you know we did bring back lots of lunar samples...the science was done on the ground. Sure, we could have built and sent a robotic sample return mission, but with Apollo, we got 2 for the price of one. granted that was a race & a 'Flags & Footprints' PR stunt, but heck, I'll take it.
I would say it's a lot easier to have human 'realtime' interaction for a moving body like an asteroid for sample return, than it is for a radio-operated unmanned probe.
-
...with the exception of a few days of beyond LEO exploration on the surface of another planetary body which resulted in sizable knowledge gains in a very small area of science (lunar geology). Microgravity research and limited beyond LEO geology exploration will be all there is for the foreseeable future (next 3 decades = a professional lifetime) at any given HSF budget.
It is clear that there are no scientific payloads that will or can be funded that require a 100mt HLV. It is also clear that the development and operations of an HLV means NASA's HSF focus will remain as is (2/3rds of NASA => HSF) for the next decades, which is not good for the actual scientists' projects as explained above (while good for contractors and engineers of course). Objectively, scientists who want to maximize the science done in space should hope that no HLV is funded at all.
Umm..you know we did bring back lots of lunar samples...the science was done on the ground. Sure, we could have built and sent a robotic sample return mission, but with Apollo, we got 2 for the price of one. granted that was a race & a 'Flags & Footprints' PR stunt, but heck, I'll take it.
I would say it's a lot easier to have human 'realtime' interaction for a moving body like an asteroid for sample return, than it is for a radio-operated unmanned probe.
I said the Apollo program resulted in sizable knowledge gains, however they have been in a very limited area of space science. I tried to make a different point: objectively, scientists should be against any HLV development and rather hope that Constellation gets canceled indefinitely, which would leave a smaller NASA which however has a larger focus on non-HSF science missions.
-
Bingo! Well said.
A HLV has pretty much nothing to do with science missions. Same for CxP. Claiming otherwise annoys me. I really have nothing against HSF in an affordable way - in which a HLV does not help. But talking about science pies in the sky to (co)justify a HLV does simply not hold any water.
Analyst
-
I would say it's a lot easier to have human 'realtime' interaction for a moving body like an asteroid for sample return, than it is for a radio-operated unmanned probe.
And I say you are wrong. Sorry. There is sample return spacecraft currently on its way back to earth from an asteroid. It may or may not make it. Its cost (including development) - very a useful definition of "easy" - less than one manned spaceflight launch (of an already developed system).
One of the three current NF proposals is an asteroid sample return, for ~$700 million. How long does HSF "live" for this money? About a month at current budget levels. So much for talking "easy".
Analyst
-
Bingo! Well said.
A HLV has pretty much nothing to do with science missions. Same for CxP. Claiming otherwise annoys me. I really have nothing against HSF in an affordable way - in which a HLV does not help. But talking about science pies in the sky to (co)justify a HLV does simply not hold any water.
Analyst
Well I guess for once (at least) there's a difference of opinion between us.
But for me, it screams to the fact that we are doing something wrong that science & HSF are not colaborating. If they were (when required), then maybe we might get more out of our endeavours.
-
Both robotic and human capabilities are needed.
Per Steve Squyres:
"And when I hear people point to Spirit and Opportunity and say that these are examples of why we don't need to send humans to Mars, I get very upset. Because that's not even the right discussion to be having. We must send humans to Mars. We can't do it soon enough for me. You know, I'm a robot guy. I mean, I love Spirit and Opportunity - and I use a word like "love" very advisedly when talking about a hunk of metal.
But I love those machines. I miss them. I do. But they will never, ever have the capabilities that humans will have and I sure hope you send people soon."
-
But for me, it screams to the fact that we are doing something wrong that science & HSF are not colaborating. If they were (when required), then maybe we might get more out of our endeavours.
HSF and science do have one goal they share - the exploration of the Martian surface which we can only do to a certain degree with robots and where science would really benefit from humans on site. However, costs prohibit a Mars surface mission any time soon (within the next 3-4 decades).
However any HLV that will be developed right now is probably not going to be used in that form for any human Mars surface mission (contrary to the claim made that we need to develop an HLV for such a mission). In 30-40 years that HLV will be phased out for a newer one. As a result, unless NASA's budget situation and stated goal severely changes and be focused on a Mars surface mission (which is not going to happen), scientists (apart from maybe lunar geologists...) should not support the development of an HLV. There is nothing scientists can gain from an HLV development now. But it's a moot point anyway, it's not like NASA's money is allocated within a democratic process where scientists can vote where the money should go to. If they could, I tell you, Cx won't be funded at any executable budget level.
-
But for me, it screams to the fact that we are doing something wrong that science & HSF are not colaborating. If they were (when required), then maybe we might get more out of our endeavours.
HSF and science do have one goal they share - the exploration of the Martian surface which we can only do to a certain degree with robots and where science would really benefit from humans on site. However, costs prohibit a Mars surface mission any time soon (within the next 3-4 decades).
See, you're missing the big picture.
Walking on the surface of any body is one thing, but you don't have to. Also, the costs of even landing on the moon are greater than a fly-by.
TELE-ROBOTICS.
The distance to Mars is so great, we can't do realtime rover driving. But imagine the same goals as the days of Apollo, where you practice your missions by a fly-by. We can do that for the moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids...and we never have to land.
I'm saying we launch a manned mission to any of those destinations, send down one or more landers and/or rovers, and do the science realtime. You 'enable' more science by hitching a ride with the manned mission, and they can bring back the samples. You can also better ensure at least one sample gets back, because you can make realtime adjustments.You can also drop the science payload more accurately in the case of Mars, in the event a dust storm is located over the prime location.
We're never going to land on Venus, but we can sure do a lot of science in orbit by controlling the science on the ground.
-
TELE-ROBOTICS.
The distance to Mars is so great, we can't do realtime rover driving. But imagine the same goals as the days of Apollo, where you practice your missions by a fly-by. We can do that for the moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids...and we never have to land.
I'm saying we launch a manned mission to any of those destinations, send down one or more landers and/or rovers, and do the science realtime. You 'enable' more science by hitching a ride with the manned mission, and they can bring back the samples. You can also better ensure at least one sample gets back, because you can make realtime adjustments.You can also drop the science payload more accurately in the case of Mars, in the event a dust storm is located over the prime location.
Telerobotics is cute, and probably quite worthwhile if it's science going along for the ride with a (necessarily political) decision to send men to the Martian moons. But it's hardly a justification. The cost of a manned mission even to the Martian moons is gigantic -- are you really confident that spending many tens of $billions to do telerobotics is the best way to get the science? How many MER, MSL, winged gliders, balloons, orbital penetrators, etc. could that buy? How much could you improve the rovers with a comparatively miniscule few tens of $millions in AI research on the automatic driving algorithms?
HSF cannot be justified on the basis of pure science. HSF can be justified, perhaps, on the basis of politics, or inspiration, or dreams, or eventual destiny, etc. But science-for-the-buck will be probes, robots, and telescopes every time.
Science will be happy to go along for the ride, if HSF gives them a little piece of a much larger pie. If there's any pie left to share.
-Alex
-
HSF cannot be justified on the basis of pure science. HSF can be justified, perhaps, on the basis of politics, or inspiration, or dreams, or eventual destiny, etc. But science-for-the-buck will be probes, robots, and telescopes every time.
Absolutely right. HSF can never be justified by science. So please stop refering to science when trying to justify HSF. If science is the goal, then we should immediately cease HSF and go all-robotic.
Fortunately, science isn't everything. There are other things that animate us than the desire to do science. Exploration is not equal to science. Not everything needs to be utilitarian, nor even cost-effective. Otherwise, how could you ever justify Formula One races, for example? :D
Anyway, science has lost much of its appeal to many, including myself. That's why I am now a proud former scientist. But that's another story and OT, I guess.
-
Is the interest in survival for the human species just science? Of course not.
-
HSF cannot be justified on the basis of pure science. HSF can be justified, perhaps, on the basis of politics, or inspiration, or dreams, or eventual destiny, etc. But science-for-the-buck will be probes, robots, and telescopes every time.
Absolutely right. HSF can never be justified by science. So please stop refering to science when trying to justify HSF. If science is the goal, then we should immediately cease HSF and go all-robotic.
Fortunately, science isn't everything. There are other things that animate us than the desire to do science. Exploration is not equal to science. Not everything needs to be utilitarian, nor even cost-effective. Otherwise, how could you ever justify Formula One races, for example? :D
Anyway, science has lost much of its appeal to many, including myself. That's why I am now a proud former scientist. But that's another story and OT, I guess.
It's NOT right.
Look, I know this is not ALWAYS the case, but consider this:
We had no idea the composition of the moon, its fine abrasive dust, until we went there. Unless you do sample return, you wouldn't know.
We ARE going to be going to these locations: Ateroids, moon (again, but more locations), Mars, moons of Mars, perhaps Venus. We aren't going to land there first, even the Augustine Commmitte mentioned that, as have many others. Why? The high cost of landers & gravity wells.
As to the Formula 1 reference: how did come to use carbon fiber, or other lightweight materials? Science. The Science of materials, combustion, aerodynamics...they all play a role. We are not going anywhere without the science to solve the problems. Why do you think we have a space station up there?
The long term goal require the slow and steady progress of science to learn from our 'exploits'. From that learning, we apply that to engineering to make things cheaper, better more efficient.
When we go to an asteroid, what is the purpose? Are we going to habitate it? NO. We are going there to explore its mineral content for riches, and maybe gain insight into where it came from, how we can track NEO objects...this is all science.
HSF can help enable more science, we are just too stupid to use it properly to our advantage. That's what needs to change.
-
It's NOT right.
Look, I know this is not ALWAYS the case, but consider this:
We had no idea the composition of the moon, its fine abrasive dust, until we went there. Unless you do sample return, you wouldn't know.
We ARE going to be going to these locations: Ateroids, moon (again, but more locations), Mars, moons of Mars, perhaps Venus. We aren't going to land there first, even the Augustine Commmitte mentioned that, as have many others. Why? The high cost of landers & gravity wells.
As to the Formula 1 reference: how did come to use carbon fiber, or other lightweight materials? Science. The Science of materials, combustion, aerodynamics...they all play a role. We are not going anywhere without the science to solve the problems. Why do you think we have a space station up there?
The long term goal require the slow and steady progress of science to learn from our 'exploits'. From that learning, we apply that to engineering to make things cheaper, better more efficient.
When we go to an asteroid, what is the purpose? Are we going to habitate it? NO. We are going there to explore its mineral content for riches, and maybe gain insight into where it came from, how we can track NEO objects...this is all science.
HSF can help enable more science, we are just too stupid to use it properly to our advantage. That's what needs to change.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you don't understand what I meant. Yes, of course you can (and should) do all of the above when you do manned exploration on other worlds. But to use this as a justification for HSF is wrong. All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives. So the real reason to send humans is not science, it is something else.
-
Is the interest in survival for the human species just science? Of course not.
There are things here on Earth that should be done that counter (small) risks against the destruction of the human species, first, before thinking on how the human species survives many million years from now. The likelihood that humans will be around at a time when the Earth becomes uninhabitable due to extrinsic reasons (sun's lifecycle etc.) is more than slim anyway.
An HLV for HSF only can't be justified by the potential "survival of the human species in a billion years from now", nor can it be justified through scientific demand for an HLV. It can be justified by politics and politics only, which include politicians' interest in job preservation, image preservation and their goal of "inspiring a new generation" (if that is really possible with human space flight any more, which I very much doubt).
-
Lambda-4, the more I read from you the more I agree. I have nothing to add.
Analyst
-
All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives.
I agree with virtually everything you said except this one statement. I strongly suspect that with some very complex missions it might be cheaper to use humans then to attempt to do everything with robotics. That being said, these missions are so far off/expensive that it doesn't make a very strong argument.
-
All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives.
I agree with virtually everything you said except this one statement. I strongly suspect that with some very complex missions it might be cheaper to use humans then to attempt to do everything with robotics. That being said, these missions are so far off/expensive that it doesn't make a very strong argument.
At the end it is a question on how quickly and how far robotics advances. 30 years from now, semi-automatic robotics might just work like this: Input from Earth: "please get us a sample, spectroanalysis and rock soil composition analysis from 5 different areas in the rock formation specified by Package A to be sent with this order" and your robot does so (of course supervised, however with a time lag) until it runs into a bigger problem. We are at the stage of saying "please, move 45m to the North" already, while a Mars rover plots its own course around the landscape automatically and autonomously.
-
Lambda-4, the more I read from you the more I agree. I have nothing to add.
Analyst
It's good we agree. These points about HSF shouldn't really be controversial anyway. NASA employees, scientists, review committee members (of different committees) and even politicians have all acknowledged (very often in testimony before Congress) that HSF cannot be justified by just pointing to science or to "the survival of the human race" or any other practical reason. There are different (of course also valid reasons) why HSF and along with it an HLV gets funding, but people should be fair enough to say what these reasons are.
-
All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives.
I agree with virtually everything you said except this one statement. I strongly suspect that with some very complex missions it might be cheaper to use humans then to attempt to do everything with robotics. That being said, these missions are so far off/expensive that it doesn't make a very strong argument.
At the end it is a question on how quickly and how far robotics advances. 30 years from now, semi-automatic robotics might just work like this: Input from Earth: "please get us a sample, spectroanalysis and rock soil composition analysis from 5 different areas in the rock formation specified by Package A to be sent with this order" and your robot does so (of course supervised, however with a time lag) until it runs into a bigger problem. We are at the stage of saying "please, move 45m to the North" already, while a Mars rover plots its own course around the landscape automatically and autonomously.
I'll respond to ChrisSpaceCH's post as well in this one, if I may.
This is part of the reason for 'tagging science along' with HSF. Robotics only takes us so far at the moment. I will say that there is a strong probability that in the 30 year timeframe you give, there will most likely be an advance in robotics & software to allow for almost complete autonomous, or 'more' semi-autonomous control than we have now. Sounds reasonable. Until then however, we 'have chosen' a HSF persuit of LEO and BEO for exploration, and we can use that to our advantage until we reach the stage where we don't need to venture out there.
Who knows, maybe be these small HSF steps we take, we are also aiding in the advance of these types of robotics missions. If we do ISRU activities utilizing these types of robotics, we may well need those capabilities.
The converse, we may end up 'enabling' not just NASA rockets, but through the ISS, commercial capabilities enough that if we do run out of money for HSF activities, they can expand to the robotics missions of that time (requiring greater mass & volume) that NASA can stand down.
-
I disagree with those who bash "Flexible path" NEO-missions and want to see us return to the moon instead.
IMO, lunar landings would accomplish little, and be unlikely to rekindle public interest in manned space exploration ("been there, done that"). A moon base would be as "exciting" for Joe Sixpack as the ISS is...
Mars is currently beyond our technical capacity; a Mars landing wouldn't be possible before the mid-2030s, even with an unsustainable Apollo-type "sprint" profile, which I, for one, do not want to see. And a program that only produced results in 25 years will never get funded.
Flexible path is not only the best way to go forward, it is really the only way to go forward, IMO. Plus, I reiterate again: Moon is no longer interesting, Mars is too difficult and irrelevant, NEOs are relevant to us on Earth (threat) and are the one place where sending humans might actually be justified: These missions could be sold as "defence" missions instead of "scientific" missions, so the budget could be compared with military expenditures instead of scientific exploration. Just think what could be accomplished in space with the US' military budget...
-
RObotics only takes us so far at the moment.
"So far" being far beyond than HSF does, both in distance and knowledge.
Analyst
-
The only comparison we have between manned and robotic exploration of another object is the moon, but that is forty odd years out of date.
If we could send robots with levels of decision making autonomy, and creative on-the-spot-thinking, comparable to a human I think that would settle the argument as far as pure scientific exploration is concerned. However space exploration fulfills many needs for many people, and scientific exploration is only one of them.
Perhaps the manned vs robotic exploration of an asteroid would provide both sides of the debate with a direct up to date comparison of effectiveness. I'm sure if asteroid visits do take place both machines and humans will be sent. We already know the machines will win on cost, but will the humans prove superior in exploration, public engagement, and political bragging rights? If robots can find a way to overtake humans in those areas perhaps humans will only go into space as tourists- or not at all!
-
The only comparison we have between manned and robotic exploration of another object is the moon, but that is forty odd years out of date.
That's an invalid comparison. Noone disputes that human exploration of the surface of the Moon was by far more useful to lunar geologists than robotic exploration of the surface of the moon (Russian rover program). The question at hand is whether HSF can be justified by the science done with manned missions. Given the fact that HSF in the US has received a lot more funds since the inception of space flight than robotic exploration mission, the bang for the buck for science with robotic missions is by far higher than for HSF missions. As a consequence HSF cannot be justified by pointing to the science done by humans ins space. There are many other valid reasons for HSF that we can talk about, but not that one - that one is clear, science cannot justify the costs (and risks to lives!) associated with HSF.
-
That depends on whether or not you think the science done *on the humans* is useful science or not. Obviously, the robots contribute little to this area.
-
The only comparison we have between manned and robotic exploration of another object is the moon, but that is forty odd years out of date.
That's an invalid comparison. Noone disputes that human exploration of the surface of the Moon was by far more useful to lunar geologists than robotic exploration of the surface of the moon (Russian rover program). The question at hand is whether HSF can be justified by the science done with manned missions. Given the fact that HSF in the US has received a lot more funds since the inception of space flight than robotic exploration mission, the bang for the buck for science with robotic missions is by far higher than for HSF missions. As a consequence HSF cannot be justified by pointing to the science done by humans ins space. There are many other valid reasons for HSF that we can talk about, but not that one - that one is clear, science cannot justify the costs (and risks to lives!) associated with HSF.
We love looking back, don't we?
Maybe that's both a blessing and a curse.
We need to take that knowledge of our actions & record of old, and use that to 'better ourselves' going forward. Let us learn from our mistakes (or misguided actions).
We need to do better. We need to use both to help us go forward in the frontiers of space. Yes, unmanned probes will always be necessary, especially as scouts, but if we want to TRULY look at the differences of what a manned mission will do for us, versus a robotic one, look at what will be accomplished with the MSL. If we need a separate thread, then maybe that's better.
Figure out the cost/benefit of a manned Asteroid 'visit' compared to the MSL. We already know we can't bring samples back, so we lose out there. If we look at a sample return mission, which costs could be scaled to the MSL development, we might get close to a parallel.
That depends on whether or not you think the science done *on the humans* is useful science or not. Obviously, the robots contribute little to this area.
Yes, there is definitely that. For an asteroid mission, it would be duplicated by ANY long-term mission in space with similar use of AG (or not).
-
That depends on whether or not you think the science done *on the humans* is useful science or not. Obviously, the robots contribute little to this area.
I was thinking about science in general. Human spaceflight hasn't taught us much about the human body. We know now that humans don't die after a short while in a microgravity environment, we know that a microgravity environment leads to bone density loss, muscle and ligament atrophy and other permanent problems after a long time in that environment. I wouldn't characterize that as a big leap forward in science. The study of telomeres and enzyme telomerase in relationship with chromosomes (Nobel Prize in Medicine 2009) has probably pushed science in medicine forward more than all human spaceflight study of the human body.
There are biological, chemical and other experiments that can only be done in a microgravity environment, but for the most part there is no reason why those experiments need to be man-tendered. They can and are currently flown on unmanned missions (Russian Foton missions).
-
RObotics only takes us so far at the moment.
"So far" being far beyond than HSF does, both in distance and knowledge.
Analyst
It's been said many times that the major place where HSF would far outpace any robotic mission is geology. A Geologist's ability to rapidly identify and sample interesting targets and features(in real time) goes far beyond what robitics are capable of at this time.
Unfortunately, other than NEOs, that requires massive invsetment.. sending lots of mass down into large gravity wells. Something we don't seem to be willing to invest in in the near future.
-
Unfortunately, other than NEOs, that requires massive investment.. sending lots of mass down into large gravity wells. Something we don't seem to be willing to invest in in the near future.
I would clarify that statement as "...RETURNING lots of mass from large gravity wells.
-
It's been said many times that the major place where HSF would far outpace any robotic mission is geology. A Geologist's ability to rapidly identify and sample interesting targets and features(in real time) goes far beyond what robitics are capable of at this time.
True. Especially for Mars. A human Mars surface mission would be magnitudes more worthy than current robotic missions are. But we don't have the money.
Also, at some point in the future, advancements in robotics, AI and also band-stream may just result in robotic missions which combine a geologist's ability to identify interesting targets and features with the comparatively low costs of a robotic mission and its other positive features (longevity, no risk of a life etc.). Think about the possibility of a robot sending back a 3D image of its nearest environment in immense detail in which geologist can move around on Earth in VR and select further targets.
-
If we could send robots with levels of decision making autonomy, and creative on-the-spot-thinking, comparable to a human I think that would settle the argument as far as pure scientific exploration is concerned. However space exploration fulfills many needs for many people, and scientific exploration is only one of them.
Three things. First, we're a long ways from making that happen. Second, there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding the use of human level or greater AIs. What do you do with the AI after the mission is finished? Just terminating a human level intelligence appears to me to be crudely equivalent to terminating the existence of a human.
There's also the matter of restricting the capabilities of the robot so that you can't create a situation that quickly balloons out of control. If a robot has the physical and mental capability and opportunity to make a copy of itself in the time it exists, then you have the potential for a rapidly growing population of out of control Von Neumann machines constrained only by the limits of resources of the available environment (which could end up being the entire Solar System). Even if that happens, that might not be particularly dangerous to us, but it's something you don't have to worry about with a traditional breeding population of humans (over short time frames).
My view is that even for expeditions that use highly advanced AI comparable or better than human level intelligence, it'll be a good idea to have someone local in the loop to insure against things getting out of hand. Even if robots can do it all, someone will want a human middle manager in there to supervise.
-
That's an invalid comparison.
Thats what I was trying to say. My line of reasoning was that the state of robotics has moved on so far from then. What was your line of reasoning?
The question at hand is whether HSF can be justified by the science done with manned missions.
As far as planetary science goes: I've no idea if it can be, but without an example of human exploration of another body (if we're not counting the moon) I have no idea how to approach the question in any case!
Same with AI ethics- without an AI to ask how can we know?
We're veering way off topic methinks.
-
True. Especially for Mars. A human Mars surface mission would be magnitudes more worthy than current robotic missions are. But we don't have the money.
Also, at some point in the future, advancements in robotics, AI and also band-stream may just result in robotic missions which combine a geologist's ability to identify interesting targets and features with the comparatively low costs of a robotic mission and its other positive features (longevity, no risk of a life etc.). Think about the possibility of a robot sending back a 3D image of its nearest environment in immense detail in which geologist can move around on Earth in VR and select further targets.
The geologist still can't sample or interact with the Mars environment in real time. My view is that the fundamental problem with current space science is that effectively, there are a bunch of niches that can be filled by a single unmanned mission. For example, if there's a Venus mission going on, then it's very unlikely that another Venus mission will be approved.
A manned mission (or series of missions) would fill the niche with a mission ten to one hundred times the cost of the minimal needed. That's inefficient from a funding standpoint. You can fill more niches by dropping manned missions even if the science becomes vastly less productive as a result.
-
1. First, we're a long ways from making that happen.
2. Second, there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding the use of human level or greater AIs. What do you do with the AI after the mission is finished? Just terminating a human level intelligence appears to me to be crudely equivalent to terminating the existence of a human.
3. There's also the matter of restricting the capabilities of the robot so that you can't create a situation that quickly balloons out of control.[...]
4. My view is that even for expeditions that use highly advanced AI comparable or better than human level intelligence, it'll be a good idea to have someone local in the loop to insure against things getting out of hand. Even if robots can do it all, someone will want a human middle manager in there to supervise.
1. I disagree. We are at the stage where robotics become more semi-automatic right now. Not in the sense you are thinking of, but in a mission critical sense. A robot that has the capability to path its own way on Mars to a distant destination and does an analysis (taking sample, putting sample in analyzer, relaying back data) is reality now. And that's what we are talking about. Humans did the same thing on the Moon 90% of the time, they had scripted missions (points where to go to, sample objectives etc.) that they were carrying out with communication and back-up from Earth.
2. We are not that far and I doubt we will get that far anytime soon. "AI" is used not only in relation to real intelligence that includes creative thinking and own problem solving, but also relates to more complex scripting of certain tasks. There is no ethical question here, that a Mars rover can identify obstacles in its way and move around them to get to its destination without a human saying so doesn't equate to a rover being alive.
3. That's more or less sci-fi and not applicable for this discussion.
4. Disagree, at least with regard to the surface missions that we will see in the next decades. Earth-based control with a time-lack is sufficient supervision.
-
What was your line of reasoning?
I probably misread your post. My point was that a valid comparison of human exploration and robotic exploration takes all robotic missions and their costs on the one side and compares it with the science done by human exploration and their costs. Which side has advanced science further per (billion) dollar invested wins the comparison.
As far as planetary science goes: I've no idea if it can be, but without an example of human exploration of another body (if we're not counting the moon) I have no idea how to approach the question in any case!
As specified above, we can of course compare human exploration and robotic exploration of planetary bodies. With the exception of the Moon where the science return in total of HSF has been higher for lunar geology, robotic exploration wins by default for every single object ever examined in our Solar System - including Earth.
We're veering way off topic methinks.
Agreed. Last post on this subject from my side.
-
True. Especially for Mars. A human Mars surface mission would be magnitudes more worthy than current robotic missions are. But we don't have the money.
Also, at some point in the future, advancements in robotics, AI and also band-stream may just result in robotic missions which combine a geologist's ability to identify interesting targets and features with the comparatively low costs of a robotic mission and its other positive features (longevity, no risk of a life etc.). Think about the possibility of a robot sending back a 3D image of its nearest environment in immense detail in which geologist can move around on Earth in VR and select further targets.
The geologist still can't sample or interact with the Mars environment in real time. My view is that the fundamental problem with current space science is that effectively, there are a bunch of niches that can be filled by a single unmanned mission. For example, if there's a Venus mission going on, then it's very unlikely that another Venus mission will be approved.
A manned mission (or series of missions) would fill the niche with a mission ten to one hundred times the cost of the minimal needed. That's inefficient from a funding standpoint. You can fill more niches by dropping manned missions even if the science becomes vastly less productive as a result.
Why can't a geologist interact in real time if he's on the surface? I agree having him in orbit teleoperating a robot may be less useful.. though perhaps more cost effective.
The rest of your argument has valid points.. Robotics is cheaper.. without a doubt.
However, does your argument count on the fact congress/WH will be willing to fund NASA at the same level for strictly robotic missions as it will when manned missions are involved?
-
1. First, we're a long ways from making that happen.
1. I disagree. We are at the stage where robotics become more semi-automatic right now. Not in the sense you are thinking of, but in a mission critical sense. A robot that has the capability to path its own way on Mars to a distant destination and does an analysis (taking sample, putting sample in analyzer, relaying back data) is reality now. And that's what we are talking about. Humans did the same thing on the Moon 90% of the time, they had scripted missions (points where to go to, sample objectives etc.) that they were carrying out with communication and back-up from Earth.
Marsbug said "with levels of decision making autonomy, and creative on-the-spot-thinking, comparable to a human". That's far beyond what you are referring to (for example, the "10%" of human decisions that you ignored). Points 2-4 were made given that. If robots never reach human-level decision making capability (in our lifetimes), then those points are not an issue.
-
If robots never reach human-level decision making capability (in our lifetimes), then those points are not an issue.
My point was that it is irrelevant if they come close to human creativity or not. To come close to the efficiency of a human explorer we don't need that kind of AI, we just need a better AI than we have now, improved in the areas where we already have semi-autonomous robotic activity.
-
Even with advances in artificial intelligence, there may be things--potentially very important things--that robots would miss but a human would notice.
A humorous fictional example is expressed in the children's movie "Planet 51." An astronaut lands on a planet which he thinks was uninhabited because the AI rover sent beforehand only wanted to take pictures of rocks (it's inhabited by aliens that look like Sea Monkeys but act like 1950s Americans). Obviously, a mistake that obvious would never happen, but something much more subtle could. It's possible the most interesting things yet to be discovered in space are not something that you could train an AI to do (at least not for a very long time). Human beings, on the other hand, have the advantage of being honed by evolution over millions and millions of years to find interesting things in diverse environments.
Besides, the most compelling argument isn't the science output: Humankind will clearly remain limited to Earth unless we step out into space.
To modify a Reagan quote:
"We are too great a species to limit ourselves to small dreams."
Also, on the subject of Flexible Path, I think it is a good path forward, especially going to Phobos. Phobos WILL inspire, and I think would surely lead to a Mars landing soon after.
If America is in terminal decline (I don't think it is), then someone will take our place, and will inspire people around the world with their space exploration.
-
A point worth mentioning is that, as much as robotics is advancing, so too is medicine and biotechnology. If you could put your astros into hibernation for the trip, then even missions to Mars could become a lot more affordable. Couple that with advanced closed-loop life support and that's big savings. Advances in suit developments will also make EVA a lot easier.
As for America being in decline, it's not really a decline as a reality of industrial development. Once you replace outhouses with toilets, telephones with the internet, there's not a lot more room for development. Space is the next big frontier but it's the most difficult one to get money out of. Still need that magic $200/kilo.
-
Just out of interest, does anyone know the launch window dates for NEOs (within the 180-day mission limit mentioned during the Augustine Commission hearings) from 2020 onwards? If you could direct me to a link where I can see or even calculate these for any solar system object, that would be gratefully appreciated.
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
Well, to me we need a Earth-based unit of measure. How do we measure the value of discovery in the Antarctic, or deep sea submersibles, or geologic digs in Egypt?
In the end, there is no tangible way to measure it, it can be argued it is simply the knowledge gained. Now, you could get lucky along the way, find something so unique from the oceans that it provides a cure for cancer, or a snail that has a special steel-layered sheel that could provide better armour for troops, or simply the crowds that will flock to see some new discovery.
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefots, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
-
Just out of interest, does anyone know the launch window dates for NEOs (within the 180-day mission limit mentioned during the Augustine Commission hearings) from 2020 onwards? If you could direct me to a link where I can see or even calculate these for any solar system object, that would be gratefully appreciated.
The length of NEO missions, their viability and date of launch windows depend on the delta-v you can provide, your requirement of the length of the launch window and length of stay at the NEO and whether you want a prior launch window for a precursor robotic mission. Due to these very specific variables and quite complicated orbital mechanics when it comes to NEO rendezvous calculation (you need precise measurements of the NEO trajectory you want to visit), it takes some time to find a suitable candidate for a certain date and is quite an effort. I am not aware of a comprehensive list that has been established by NASA yet or published by anyone. I know that for their recent Flexible Path internal memo they looked at a variety of NEOs.
-
... I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO ...
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Edit: it's difficult to estimate the economic impact of changes in fundamental physics. However, it's fairly obvious that the taming of electromagnetism in the 1800s was worth 10s or 100s of trillions of $$$ in the 1900s.
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
Can you clarify what you mean by scientific return. Does learning about the origins of the universe or life on Earth qualify as return. Or do you mean financial returns.
-
... I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO ...
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Edit: it's difficult to estimate the economic impact of changes in fundamental physics. However, it's fairly obvious that the taming of electromagnetism in the 1800s was worth 10s or 100s of trillions of $$$ in the 1900s.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
I'm not going to defend the idea that space science has considerable value, but I will note that in another thread I talked about a space mining idea (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20104.msg526066#msg526066) that might make sense. It's basically a way to build considerable infrastructure on the Moon and use that infrastructure to mine a big gold find. Ignoring the viability of my approach, it still remains that I have to find this ore body in order to mine it. For purposes of my model, the ore body has a value of $1.2 billion in 2050 dollars. Using the economic time value of money assumptions that I use, that would be a value of $75 million in 2010 dollars. So prospecting on the Moon now could generate $75 million of value by finding this sizable PGM ore body.
In other words, even if most space science is intangible in any benefits it might have, there is the possibility of finding concrete value from space science.
-
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
You're looking at it backwards. Invalidation of GR and other current physics theories leads to development of new physics, which could result in completely new devices, energy sources, etc.
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission?
First order estimate: Number of peer reviewed publications.
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission?
First order estimate: Number of peer reviewed publications.
A little quibble: think of the number of peer reviewed publications on string theory. The possibility remains that it's just a beautiful mathematical construct that has little to do with the physical universe. In that case, its scientific return would be close to zero... perhaps even negative, since a lot of bright people have spent their strongest years working on it rather than other problems in physics. That said, I don't necessarily believe string theory IS necessary just BS, but there are certainly lots of theories that are BS but still generate many peer reviewed publications every year (and countless other non-peer-reviewed publications on arxiv.org...).
But, that is off-topic. In light of the fact that bogus theories (near zero scientific return) can still generate peer-reviewed publications, perhaps a better metric can be found?
-
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
You're looking at it backwards. Invalidation of GR and other current physics theories leads to development of new physics, which could result in completely new devices, energy sources, etc.
Sorry, I mis-read your comment as "show our fundamental understanding of physics is correct" rather than incorrect.
Agreed, invalidation could be a real game-changer.
cheers, Martin
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
Well, to me we need a Earth-based unit of measure. How do we measure the value of discovery in the Antarctic, or deep sea submersibles, or geologic digs in Egypt?
In the end, there is no tangible way to measure it, it can be argued it is simply the knowledge gained. Now, you could get lucky along the way, find something so unique from the oceans that it provides a cure for cancer, or a snail that has a special steel-layered sheel that could provide better armour for troops, or simply the crowds that will flock to see some new discovery.
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefots, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
In a way, that was my point. It's *not* quantifiable, so anyone claiming unmanned space exploration gets you more bang for the buck is disingenuous. It's the taxpayers shell out for this stuff, and if the main return they get is in the form of goshwow, then we need to compare the two in those exact terms Buck Rogers vs. Toy Cars on Mars. And if unmanned space exploration is all about Boys with Toys, then the boys (and yes, I know there are girl scientists too) need to pay for their own toys and leave the taxpayers to their Wii and beer (yep, there's a pun there alrighty).
-
... I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO ...
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Edit: it's difficult to estimate the economic impact of changes in fundamental physics. However, it's fairly obvious that the taming of electromagnetism in the 1800s was worth 10s or 100s of trillions of $$$ in the 1900s.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
Isn't that a little like saying if we don't explore space, we'll *never* find that crashed alien spacecraft?
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission?
First order estimate: Number of peer reviewed publications.
I got a good laugh out of that one! I can just imagine using that as the basis for a funding proposal! "My Ariel Orbiter project will result in 12,861 peer reviewed publications. Therefore, since a peer reviewed publication is valued at $18.4mln, I request a budget of..."
-
I think the General Relativity alternative theory and finding an alien spacecraft are just two examples of us finding things we aren't really looking for. Do you think that the fish in the sea can even see the stars, let alone comprehend what they are? Perhaps we need to expand in to space before we can find out about the NEXT BIG THING. There's no real way we can point to what the unknown may be, except to look to fiction for analogies (i.e. the alien spacecraft).
We need to explore every nook and cranny of our solar system. If there's any way we can, we need to live on the Moon, Mars, Ceres...
It's easy for some people to dismiss what one might find if one explores the unknown. I've never understood that. It could be nothing, or it could be something we have no idea about right now. Either way, the money is going to be spent on Earth, not launched into space.
EDIT: And if astronauts die trying to explore those unknowns, then I wish I could be as lucky to have such an honorable death.
-
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefits, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
In a way, that was my point. It's *not* quantifiable, so anyone claiming unmanned space exploration gets you more bang for the buck is disingenuous. It's the taxpayers shell out for this stuff, and if the main return they get is in the form of goshwow, then we need to compare the two in those exact terms Buck Rogers vs. Toy Cars on Mars. And if unmanned space exploration is all about Boys with Toys, then the boys (and yes, I know there are girl scientists too) need to pay for their own toys and leave the taxpayers to their Wii and beer (yep, there's a pun there alrighty).
It is quantifiable, but only at the end (IE:results). You can manage it if you can measure it. But it is an unknown 'quantity' until it is measured.
Do you play a game of baseball 'knowing' you are going to win ahead of time? Some would put less value on it since we already know the answer, just proving it's true. But because we don't know the outcome, and there is a challenge, we make the effort.
To that end, what value has a game like baseball provided, even though taxpayer money usually goes into tax incentives & so on? (rhetorical)
So until you have gone out to, in this case, an asteroid, and determined if there is anything of value from the mission, can you truly value it. Many science experiments are that way. You still spend money for baseline data, even though you usually know the result; but it helps you move beyond your intial assessment.
By going out to visit an asteroid, if that were to happen before going to a moon of Mars, then we know how to handle smaller bodies, longer duration missions, the ins & out of the spacecraft to get more baseline data.
-
Lets try history. Over many areas there is a 60 year delay between a scientific discovery and a product that uses it effecting the general public. 2010 - 60 = 1950. The spinoffs from NASA technology are well known, what are the spinoffs from NASA/space science discoveries?
-
I think the General Relativity alternative theory and finding an alien spacecraft are just two examples of us finding things we aren't really looking for.
We know that GR is incomplete, and plenty of energy goes into finding something more complete.
Evidence would move that work on hugely, from what I've read.
cheers, Martin
-
... I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO ...
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Edit: it's difficult to estimate the economic impact of changes in fundamental physics. However, it's fairly obvious that the taming of electromagnetism in the 1800s was worth 10s or 100s of trillions of $$$ in the 1900s.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
Isn't that a little like saying if we don't explore space, we'll *never* find that crashed alien spacecraft?
I misread "incorrect" as "correct", and therefore "the taming of GR". I didn't see how this justified technology impacts.
I should have read more carefully, he was talking about "the taming of non-GR effects".
cheers, Martin
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission?
First order estimate: Number of peer reviewed publications.
I got a good laugh out of that one! I can just imagine using that as the basis for a funding proposal! "My Ariel Orbiter project will result in 12,861 peer reviewed publications. Therefore, since a peer reviewed publication is valued at $18.4mln, I request a budget of..."
Welcome to todays academic funding practice.
The number of publications (multiplied by the impact factors of the respective
journals) is a measure of your past performance. Your future budgets
will be mostly based on this past performance, not on the quality of your
funding proposals.
For space missions the number of peer-reviewed publications (* impact factors)
is quite a good metric for science return, not as an absolute value but to
compare science return from different mission.
(BS is usually published in very low impact journals)
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
GPS actually uses General Relativity to correct the frequency shift in gravitational fields.
-
...
(BS is usually published in very low impact journals)
...
True, but such a rating system can be perverted via political prejudices.
For instance, suppose some of the higher rated journals have editors and reviewers which are culturally opposed to manned spaceflight, so tend not to want to publish such papers, making this a poor metric to use for this purpose (i.e. comparing manned to unmanned scientific impact).
Overall, though, it's as good of a rating system as could be expected.
-
...
(BS is usually published in very low impact journals)
...
True, but such a rating system can be perverted via political prejudices.
For instance, suppose some of the higher rated journals have editors and reviewers which are culturally opposed to manned spaceflight, so tend not to want to publish such papers, making this a poor metric to use for this purpose (i.e. comparing manned to unmanned scientific impact).
Overall, though, it's as good of a rating system as could be expected.
Agreed, this metric is far from perfect. But it's at least a start.
-
Lets try history. Over many areas there is a 60 year delay between a scientific discovery and a product that uses it effecting the general public. 2010 - 60 = 1950. The spinoffs from NASA technology are well known, what are the spinoffs from NASA/space science discoveries?
A case can be made for "nuclear winter theory" (TTAPS) and its offspring, "Global Warming."
-
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefits, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
In a way, that was my point. It's *not* quantifiable, so anyone claiming unmanned space exploration gets you more bang for the buck is disingenuous. It's the taxpayers shell out for this stuff, and if the main return they get is in the form of goshwow, then we need to compare the two in those exact terms Buck Rogers vs. Toy Cars on Mars. And if unmanned space exploration is all about Boys with Toys, then the boys (and yes, I know there are girl scientists too) need to pay for their own toys and leave the taxpayers to their Wii and beer (yep, there's a pun there alrighty).
It is quantifiable, but only at the end (IE:results). You can manage it if you can measure it. But it is an unknown 'quantity' until it is measured.
Do you play a game of baseball 'knowing' you are going to win ahead of time? Some would put less value on it since we already know the answer, just proving it's true. But because we don't know the outcome, and there is a challenge, we make the effort.
To that end, what value has a game like baseball provided, even though taxpayer money usually goes into tax incentives & so on? (rhetorical)
So until you have gone out to, in this case, an asteroid, and determined if there is anything of value from the mission, can you truly value it. Many science experiments are that way. You still spend money for baseline data, even though you usually know the result; but it helps you move beyond your intial assessment.
By going out to visit an asteroid, if that were to happen before going to a moon of Mars, then we know how to handle smaller bodies, longer duration missions, the ins & out of the spacecraft to get more baseline data.
When watch a baseball game, your payoff is watching baseball. One of the things that keeps happening when I ask questions like these is, people go haring off in all directions. So: what is the direct payoff to the current taxpayers for the money they are (compelled) to pay for space exploration (manned and unmanned)? This has nothing to do with the intangibles you and others are talking about, which is the issue I raised in the first place. Can you quantify the sciencific return in such a way that you can make a valid comaprison between manned & unmanned? I don't think so, and that's why we keep hearing about the vaporware results of space exploration. Give me a $XXX now and I'll pay your grandchildren back a hundredfold? I don't think so. (Heck, I'd be happy with my share of the taxflow if I could just get the UAZ Space Science Series volumes for free. Why should I have to pay $100 for a book, when I already helped pay from the space probes and the salary of the researchers?)
-
Sure, Robert, "By going out to visit an asteroid, if that were to happen before going to a moon of Mars, then we know how to handle smaller bodies, longer duration missions, the ins & out of the spacecraft to get more baseline data." But we should be doing this later, rather than sooner.
I think that the "spinoffs from NASA/space science" are few because we haven't been doing it as much as we need to over the last forty years.
"The number of publications multiplied by the impact factors" is a false metric, and the budgets based on those metrics are self-fulfilling prophecies. Prejudicial perversion is the name of the game.
One of the reasons that, in these discussions, "people go haring off in all directions" is because of the inherent inability of a strict interpretation of the scientific method to acknowledge or create higher purposes. It cannot be argued but that the payoffs are largely indirect, and that the choice to follow a path of scientific endeavor is ultimately and always a choice.
The universe is not scientific. Science is an activity of arbitrary choice that some higher organisms here on Earth elect to do. It's an insoluble Gordian knot to find purpose in the activity by scientific methods. It's indirect proof that intelligence exists copletely outside of science.
Nobody is compelled to believe the above.
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
To refute your point that an unmanned space exploration to a place we have no intention of visiting has a value of zero, you need to examine the value of science. I'll defer to Richard Feynman on the subject:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/phys216/Feynman.html
Feynman notes:
1) It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things.
2) Another value of science is the fun called intellectual enjoyment which some people get from reading and learning and thinking about it, and which others get from working in it.
3) [paraphrased] The third value is a little less direct. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question - to doubt - to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. Herein lies a responsibility to society.
So, in terms of unmanned exploration of space:
1) Each of the planets and moons in our solar system offer science a test crucible for our theories on how and why Earth is the way it is. Born of the same weave, these places operate by the same physical laws that govern our own existence, and thus offer the perfect test cases for our models of our own home world. Given mankind's ability to affect the planet as a whole, the understanding gained by fine honing these models cannot be underestimated.
2) Of course planetary scientists enjoy the thrill of discovery and understanding, but with care this excitement can be shared with the public at large. Look a the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity. By applying some simply anthropomorphic principles (stereoscopic cameras close to average human head height), JPL allowed the rover experience to seem familiar and thus easily accessible to the public at large.
3) Outer space is the ultimate uncertainty. Allowed to curl up on our cozy little planet here, it would be easy for humanity to forget that. Confirmation of how dramatically strange and exotic virtually any destination in space is pulls the public perception from the ground and to the sky, away from the mundane to whatever greater purpose lets you get out of bed. Some find the red sands of Mars compelling; for others, it's the notion of methane showers and sand dunes of ice; and some find excitement in the wispy magnetic vapors that fill interstellar space.
Some day we may visit all these places, though most remain centuries in our future. However, the wonder can begin today, and through robotic explorers we can begin to open our eyes to the grand vista surrounding us.
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Hubble gave us incredible wow factor for an unmanned telescope, and that is a case where you don't need the telescope to be tended.
You launch a mission to an asteroid, I certainly agree you could get results from an unmanned probe, compared to a manned mission, but for a cost comparison you need to include sample return for it to start being comparable. But then what is the cost 'benefit' to humanity for the knowledge gained from what is in a sample. If it were diamonds, or nickle, or iron, it would be a factor in future mining exploits, but that would be years in the future.
And a good analogy there is the total cost of the space shuttle: from design, to fabrication, to testing, to operations, to each and every flight. Those costs divided by the number of flights is a quantifyable number; you only need to know where to assign those costs in terms of $$/kg to orbit, or wow factor per launch, to local retail revenues per launch, to all the spin-offs attached to it (airline flights, meals, local benefits, technology learned)...it's mind boggling.
-
I really LOVE exploration, manned or unmanned. The Cassini-Huygens mission, you guys! What staggering beauty! And, SO MANY WORLDS!!!
See Enceladus hanging there like a marble in front of Saturn's rings, its wrinkles evidence of liquid underneath its surface!
The spectacular eclipse of Saturn!
And, TITAN!!!
While manned missions stir interest in unmanned missions, for myself, the inverse is JUST as true!
While we may not have planned on visiting Ceres for a while, observations from Hubble have made us start thinking about it.
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that pure science is impossible to value: some of it is negative in cost (takes resources that could have gone elsewhere) to so valuable it transcends notions of money. It would be like trying to determine the value of the research that led to the transistor or the laser: theoretically, you can add the sum of all products that use them, but you would still be missing some of the value these devices give our modern lives.
Unmanned space exploration is in the same boat. Your mention of Hubble is an excellent one: here is an unmanned device exploring places that men most likely will never set foot on. Does that make Hubble worthless then? To say that is to say all science is worthless and that we should retreat to the same mindset Europe had in the dark ages.
Some things transcend money. Knowledge of the universe surrounding us is one of those things. The relatively small amount of money NASA spends each year on unmanned exploration is a bargain compared to the benefits it offers society.
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that pure science is impossible to value: some of it is negative in cost (takes resources that could have gone elsewhere) to so valuable it transcends notions of money. It would be like trying to determine the value of the research that led to the transistor or the laser: theoretically, you can add the sum of all products that use them, but you would still be missing some of the value these devices give our modern lives.
Unmanned space exploration is in the same boat. Your mention of Hubble is an excellent one: here is an unmanned device exploring places that men most likely will never set foot on. Does that make Hubble worthless then? To say that is to say all science is worthless and that we should retreat to the same mindset Europe had in the dark ages.
Some things transcend money. Knowledge of the universe surrounding us is one of those things. The relatively small amount of money NASA spends each year on unmanned exploration is a bargain compared to the benefits it offers society.
Some of the mindset of the Dark Ages wasn't so bad. The cathedrals were amazing. If we had that same sustained commitment of time, money, and lives today, colonization would be cake.
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that pure science is impossible to value: some of it is negative in cost (takes resources that could have gone elsewhere) to so valuable it transcends notions of money. It would be like trying to determine the value of the research that led to the transistor or the laser: theoretically, you can add the sum of all products that use them, but you would still be missing some of the value these devices give our modern lives.
Same thoughts here.
We are still learning. Let's hope we never stop learning.
I think an asteroid mission is cool, I just hope it doesn't take precedence, or overrides many of the other goals in manned & unmanned spaceflight.
-
Just to add a link of a recent report released by the National Academy of Sciences on detecting NEOs.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12842
(Brief snip):
Date: Jan. 22, 2010
Contacts: Sara Frueh, Media Relations Officer
Alison Burnette, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <[email protected]>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Report Examines Options for Detecting and Countering Near-Earth Objects
WASHINGTON -- A new report from the National Research Council lays out options NASA could follow to detect more near-Earth objects (NEOs) – asteroids and comets that could pose a hazard if they cross Earth's orbit. The report says the $4 million the U.S. spends annually to search for NEOs is insufficient to meet a congressionally mandated requirement to detect NEOs that could threaten Earth.
-
Bumpity bump.
-
I haven't got around to reading through this thread yet, nor the main article it refers to, but here are my questions anyways.
In light of Obama's speech, and his explicit statement regarding sending astronauts to near Earth asteroids, what do people here think?
As asteroid orbits are unique, I would imagine such missions would vary greatly in terms of total mission duration and the intermediate steps (going, staying and coming back) depending on the asteroid chosen. There are probably both advantages and disadvantages to this, but what are they? And is going to an asteroid really a stepping stone to Mars? And can asteroid missions inspire the younger generation of Americans as much as a mission to Mars?
-
IIRC, the 2025 DRM mission that Chris referred to in the article related to this thread called for an extreme high-dV hyperbolic transfer orbit and then to follow the NEO to Earth before dropping off in an Orion for a quick descet. I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I've got anything wrong.
That said, am I the only one who has noticed that targets suitable for this mission profile tend to be smaller than the likely mission spacecraft (in the 10-20m long axis bracket)? There is probably a good reason for this - Earth and the Moon have likely already 'swept up' any significant-sized objects in their vicinity. The big boys like the Amors, Apollos and the like (including Eros) are further away and would likely need a specialised MTV design to access rather than the proposed dual-Orion.
If I were asked to name a target, it would be the Earth-Moon co-orbital asteroids that have recently been discovered in 'crescent moon' oscilating positions relative to Earth.
-
Come to think about it, are they also using the Flexible Path Mars approach too? Mars orbit, Phobos, Mars landing?
Might have to bump that as well!
-
Come to think about it, are they also using the Flexible Path Mars approach too? Mars orbit, Phobos, Mars landing?
I think it is safe to say that Obama's speech assumed a Mars-centric flexible path strategy.
-
Come to think about it, are they also using the Flexible Path Mars approach too? Mars orbit, Phobos, Mars landing?
I think it is safe to say that Obama's speech assumed a Mars-centric flexible path strategy.
I would be in agreement with that.
What is very important from his speech was the post-Mars orbit mission (IE: landing). "...sometime after that" as he said. Smart man, as that's the hardest one of all.
-
I'd been thinking along the same lines as Ben. The conclusion I drew from the report was that a dual-Orion architecture with a crew of two is ridiculously limited. The smallness of the asteroids that can be reached that way is a problem. 1999AO10 is the only one that's big enough (50-100m) that an astronaut going out to 'explore' it wouldn't look incredibly silly on television. It seems to me that you can visit 1999AO10 once, but then you need a mission module that can support longer missions to asteroids that are more substantial.
What is very important from his speech was the post-Mars orbit mission (IE: landing). "...sometime after that" as he said. Smart man, as that's the hardest one of all.
He then said "And I expect to be around to see it." That implies by 2050 or so.
-
Well there are two large-ish, interesting and eminently explorable asteroids in Mars orbit, plus some 'bonus science' and great shots for the folks at home on that 6k diameter rock that's filling the view of the IMAX/HD cameras :)
Of course dual Orions aren't going to cut it for that mission either...a good sized mission module is needed (Bigelow? ATV derived? ISS derived?) and what about low-g exploration mobility on the moons themselves - we aren't talking about an Orion actually 'docking' with a 20k diameter moon are we??
P
-
Well there are two large-ish, interesting and eminently explorable asteroids in Mars orbit, plus some 'bonus science' and great shots for the folks at home on that 6k diameter rock that's filling the view of the IMAX/HD cameras :)
Of course dual Orions aren't going to cut it for that mission either...a good sized mission module is needed (Bigelow? ATV derived? ISS derived?) and what about low-g exploration mobility on the moons themselves - we aren't talking about an Orion actually 'docking' with a 20k diameter moon are we??
P
I suspect we will have the culmination of a number of vehicles to make this happen.
1. Dual Orion setup for redundancy (perhaps one encapsulated and kept in a PLF for better protection)
2. A hab module for long duration, including excersise equipment and storage modules, perhaps all based on Bigelows.
3. Propulsion module with sufficient power (say RTG) for a VASIMR module, probably triple redundant. The transit times determines #4
4. Artificial Gravity (AG) requirement, if the journey exceeds ~6 months total.
-
(please don't turn this into a flame argument)
Now that the president has announced his new vision for space exploration (again don't discuss here) and it has an Asteroid mission in the works for 2025 right?
Well, I was wondering what Asteroid could we possibly go to? I was thinking, because Apophis is going to come near Earth in 2029 we could visit that in 2025-26, to possibly learn ways to deflect Asteroids coming towards Earth.
What are some options on way to get there? I'm not talking about spacecraft, I'm talking about propulsion and trajectory. What propulsion would be cheapest? Ion propulsion, Nucular, or just strait up liquid fuel? And what are some of the quickest ways we could get a spacecraft to there, flyby the moon to gain speed on the way there? On orbit refueling?
Thanks in advance.
Orbiter
-
He then said "And I expect to be around to see it." That implies by 2050 or so.
No, he said: "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it."
That implies late 2030s/early 2040s. Obama is 48 now, he would be 78 during a Mars landing in 2040.
Well, I was wondering what Asteroid could we possibly go to? I was thinking, because Apophis is going to come near Earth in 2029 we could visit that in 2025-26, to possibly learn ways to deflect Asteroids coming towards Earth.
An Apophis mission seems more likely to happen in 2029, during or soon after the close approach, so it could be reached faster.
-
2025 is the only launch window for a mission to 1999AO10. That's probably the target Obama's advisers had in mind. I think Apophis would require a lot more delta-v. I don't know that there would be a suitable launch window. At the close approach in 2029 Apophis will swing past Earth at a relative velocity of 7 km/s - that's the total delta-v required for the mission to 1999AO10.
Landing on Mars is much more expensive than orbiting it or visiting Phobos. It requires much more capability and much more mass. I thought Obama phrased the statement about landing quite cleverly.
I also think that Obama's "we've been there" remark about the Moon, while focusing on Mars instead was right politically, even though that isn't the real reason.
Nobody outside the sort of space enthusiasts here is interested in the Moon these days. It's not just that we've been there, it's that when we did go there people didn't find it interesting. It's a colourless dead rock. The dust covers everything so that the hoped-for spectacular lunar mountains Apollos 15 and 17 visited looked like rolling hills.
Mars, on the other hand, has a certain allure because it's mysterious and its colours are rather attractive to human eyes. Searching for evidence of life in the lost rivers and lakebeds is a romantic endeavour. That's more what space travel is supposed to be like.
By saying "we've been there", he also undercut Bush's "Vision" as old hat and forestalled any future Chinese ambitions on the Moon (if they have them) as so last century.
The problem with visiting NEOs is that most people don't find them interesting at all. But they're a lot cheaper uninteresting destinations than the Moon. They are stepping stones to Phobos and then to Mars, while the Moon is a diversion.
Do I think what Obama set out will happen? No. The Republicans will cancel the plan when they regain the White House. He was presented by the Republicans with a spaceflight gap and an unworkable plan, so now they're blaming him for the consequences. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he focuses on dealing with the gap, people here say that he doesn't have a long-term vision. If he talks about a long-term vision, people say it'll never happen and so he's not serious. He proposes to buy space services from competing companies like ULA and SpaceX. Republicans denounce him as unpatriotic for wanting to rely on private companies, not continue a government-owned system with massive fixed costs that coincidentally delivers lots of pork to Texas, Alabama and Utah. As Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace said, "if you could fuel a rocket on hypocrisy we'd be on Pluto by now."
-
As Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace said, "if you could fuel a rocket on hypocrisy we'd be on Pluto by now."
:)
-
I wonder whether the approach to go to a NEO first and then many years later to Phobos or Deimos is the right thing to do. Personally, I think considering the limited funds NASA does have and the preparation required, Mars orbit should be the primary and most important goal and be focused on for mid-2020s. A NEO mission can be done as a separate mission if funds are available, but shouldn't be done as a priority.
I believe a mid-2020s date for a 4-crew Mars orbital mission would be the goal that NASA needs and which would help it to focus and invest in the right technology.
-
I wonder whether the approach to go to a NEO first and then many years later to Phobos or Deimos is the right thing to do. Personally, I think considering the limited funds NASA does have and the preparation required, Mars orbit should be the primary and most important goal and be focused on for mid-2020s. A NEO mission can be done as a separate mission if funds are available, but shouldn't be done as a priority.
I believe a mid-2020s date for a 4-crew Mars orbital mission would be the goal that NASA needs and which would help it to focus and invest in the right technology.
Part of the issue is everything besides geology and human sciences can be done better by unmanned craft. A fly by of Mars doesn't contribute to human knowledge much relative to it's costs.
A NEO object is the lowest delta V target where we can let a human hit a rock with a pick.
-
A NEO object is the lowest delta V target where we can let a human hit a rock with a pick.
Most NEOs that can be visited in a 180 day mission are higher delta V targets than Deimos and Phobos. The Martian moons are among the low delta-v targets, they however require longer mission timelines.
-
A NEO object is the lowest delta V target where we can let a human hit a rock with a pick.
Most NEOs that can be visited in a 180 day mission are higher delta V targets than Deimos and Phobos. The Martian moons are among the low delta-v targets, they however require longer mission timelines.
Exactly. A few can be visited at a lower Delta V, and at and lower mission duration.
That is the point of flexible path, to give the American people milestones every few years, instead of thinking American's have the capacity to increase an agencies funding each year for a decade without milestones being spoon fed to them, because we don't.
-
2025 is the only launch window for a mission to 1999AO10.
Yes, the limited launch windows look like a somewhat unique characteristic of these NEO targets for HSF. The article quotes the presentation as saying:
“A robust example program can be constructed in which a human mission scheduled for launch in 2025 could withstand a one-year launch slip, while being preceded by a robotic reconnaissance precursor mission launched in 2019 that itself could withstand a one- or two-year launch slip.”
If the mission to 1999AO10 were to slip its schedule past the "second chance" launch opportunity, it would then have to retarget to a different NEO completely.... Apollo to the Moon wasn't like that!
-
What a depressing mess! I love what the President has suggested; it is practical, affordable, and challenging. The infighting is just infuriating. The politics and lack of any interest in arriving at a compromise is just so saddening.
I hope some form of this mission is implemented. The question of Moon vs Asteroid as a destination I don't think anyone could say for certain which would pan out in the United States' best interest over, say, the next 20 years. There are compelling arguments for both trajectories, but the negative press and endless questioning is so frustrating.
The good thing is that I believe whatever NASA's path, there will be funding on the side for Elon and Bigelow and the gang, independent of who's in office.
My 2 cents!
-
The good thing is that I believe whatever NASA's path, there will be funding on the side for Elon and Bigelow and the gang, independent of who's in office.
Yes, capsules going in circles in Low Earth Orbit for the foreseeable future, with no resumption of real exploration for another 15 years under this plan's best case scenario. That's downright depressing.
-
The good thing is that I believe whatever NASA's path, there will be funding on the side for Elon and Bigelow and the gang, independent of who's in office.
Yes, capsules going in circles in Low Earth Orbit for the foreseeable future, with no resumption of real exploration for another 15 years under this plan's best case scenario. That's downright depressing.
Not really. Real meaningful BEO exploration takes time to set up. It's not something you can just throw together in a few years. 15 years for an expedition to a NEO is a realistic goal.
As for 'capsules going in circles in Low Earth Orbit for the forseeable future', I would agree that the technology itself is not new and exciting, but the fact that commercial, not government, entities are operating these capsules is certainly new and exciting.
FY2011 is not a perfect plan, I would like it better if work on an HLV started before 2015 and if said HLV was EELV or shuttle derived. However, I think that overall, FY11 does an excellent job of opening up LEO to commerial activity and having an achievable BEO exploration goal. It's certainly not 'downright depressing'.
-
Well, wake me in 2025 if it looks like we might actually achieve something worthwhile. In the meantime, I've pretty much lost interest and lost hope for our manned space program. Maybe ISS will produce some worthwhile research, if we can make up for the logistics shortfall following shuttle retirement. But I'm not holding my breath.
-
For those who haven't been following JAXA's Hayabusa asteroid probe, here is the update thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7382.0
This mission has probably gained more significance for the future of the US space program in light of Obama's speech which stated that the first Beyond Earth Orbit destination for US astronauts will likely be an asteroid.
Chris's article that forms the basis of this thread states:
In NASA’s outline of the mission [to 1999 AO10] requirements, this target – and likely the case for other NEOs – would require the automated vehicle to arrive at the asteroid several years prior to the human expedition. Such a robotic mission wouldn’t pose a problem for NASA engineers, who would follow a roadmap laid by the Hayabusa robotic mission, led by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to return a sample of material from a small near-Earth asteroid named 25143 Itokawa.
(bold emphasis by me)
A nice article on the JAXA mission: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/bringing-back-a-piece-of-heaven
-
The good thing is that I believe whatever NASA's path, there will be funding on the side for Elon and Bigelow and the gang, independent of who's in office.
Yes, capsules going in circles in Low Earth Orbit for the foreseeable future, with no resumption of real exploration for another 15 years under this plan's best case scenario. That's downright depressing.
Pretty sure both Bigelow and Musk said they want to go to Mars. Musk explicitly said and keeps saying that he means to colonize other worlds asap; if in different words.Well, wake me in 2025 if it looks like we might actually achieve something worthwhile. In the meantime, I've pretty much lost interest and lost hope for our manned space program. Maybe ISS will produce some worthwhile research, if we can make up for the logistics shortfall following shuttle retirement. But I'm not holding my breath.
Writing was on the wall with ridiculously unrealistic Constellation.
-
The good thing is that I believe whatever NASA's path, there will be funding on the side for Elon and Bigelow and the gang, independent of who's in office.
Yes, capsules going in circles in Low Earth Orbit for the foreseeable future, with no resumption of real exploration for another 15 years under this plan's best case scenario. That's downright depressing.
No other plan offers the REMOTE possibility of BEO development in the next 15 years without MASSIVE budget increases.
Anything but flexible will stall again in 5 years when we shocking have 5 MORE YEARS of basically flat budget. At least with flexible, in 5 years we will have new tech, and some form of limited orbital services market.
Your right, Flexible path can't compare to other "alternatives" that don't take 5 minutes to wonder "Who's going to pay for it".
-
IIRC, the 2025 DRM mission that Chris referred to in the article related to this thread called for an extreme high-dV hyperbolic transfer orbit and then to follow the NEO to Earth before dropping off in an Orion for a quick descent. I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I've got anything wrong.
See http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373449main_09-07_SpaceOps.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373449main_09-07_SpaceOps.pdf) (copy of page 13 attached). TNI is only 3.3 km/s (cf 3.1 km/s for TLI & 4.2 km/s for TMI). However, rendezvous & TEI adds another 3.9 km/s, which makes the overall mission pretty demanding.
If using hypergolics, nearly 75% of the mass pushed through TNI would be propellant for rendezvous & TEI.
If using hydrolox, 60% of the injected mass would be prop, but then you need zero boiloff for three months, which is pretty challenging and adds it's own mass penalty.
Could VASIMR be ready for the big time by then???
I wonder whether the approach to go to a NEO first and then many years later to Phobos or Deimos is the right thing to do. Personally, I think considering the limited funds NASA does have and the preparation required, Mars orbit should be the primary and most important goal and be focused on for mid-2020s. A NEO mission can be done as a separate mission if funds are available, but shouldn't be done as a priority.
I believe a mid-2020s date for a 4-crew Mars orbital mission would be the goal that NASA needs and which would help it to focus and invest in the right technology.
1999AO10 is about 1/4 the duration & lower delta-V (155 days & 7.2 km/s) then a manned Phobos / Deimos mission, so it is a sensible intermediate step.
(Back to Ben's post...)
That said, am I the only one who has noticed that targets suitable for this mission profile tend to be smaller than the likely mission spacecraft (in the 10-20m long axis bracket)? There is probably a good reason for this - Earth and the Moon have likely already 'swept up' any significant-sized objects in their vicinity. The big boys like the Amors, Apollos and the like (including Eros) are further away and would likely need a specialised MTV design to access rather than the proposed dual-Orion.
If I were asked to name a target, it would be the Earth-Moon co-orbital asteroids that have recently been discovered in 'crescent moon' oscilating positions relative to Earth.
You can't do one NEO mission, then wait another 10 years before attempting moons-of-Mars.
You could visit progressively smaller NEO's, but that will only work a couple of times before Congress gets fidgety.
If more tempting targets need a lot more delta-V, then they're going to be as expensive and difficult as moons-of-Mars. It's going to be a juggling act.
cheers, Martin
-
1999AO10 is about 1/4 the duration & lower delta-V (155 days & 7.2 km/s) then a manned Phobos / Deimos mission, so it is a sensible intermediate step.
It depends on the cost comparison between a 1999AO10 mission vs. a Deimos or Phobos mission. If the costs aren't that much larger for a Mars orbital mission but using 1999AO10 as an intermediate step delays a Deimos/Phobos mission for 7-10 years would mean that a concious decision could be made to "skip" an asteroid mission.
At the end, I just hope NASA gets its act together and tries to reduce costs of deep space missions. Does it really make sense to expense 20 billion for a HSF asteroid mission with a 15 year lead time? Can't we do that sooner or at least for less money?
-
If using hypergolics, nearly 75% of the mass pushed through TNI would be propellant for rendezvous & TEI.
If using hydrolox, 60% of the injected mass would be prop, but then you need zero boiloff for three months, which is pretty challenging and adds it's own mass penalty.
Could VASIMR be ready for the big time by then???
Remember: VASMIR is a low-thrust, high Isp engine. It would be best utilised from an EML staging point. Not unthinkable but a significant modification to the mission plan.
As for chemical propulsion, the obvious option is to overload the EDS with much more propellent than it needs for the rendezvous burn and let it boil off, knowing that you have the margin. There would be penalties, of course - more mass to send through TOI. However, I doubt that it is unsurmountable. Remember, the TEI mass would be only marginally different as the extra mass of propellent would have boiled off. That is probably why the Phobos DRM has so many engine stages - to mitigate the boil-off during trans-Mars cruise and Martian parking orbit.
-
bleh. The Moon is a NEO. It's just regular. And big.
-
1999AO10 is about 1/4 the duration& lower delta-V (155 days & 7.2 km/s) then a manned Phobos / Deimos mission, so it is a sensible intermediate step.
It depends on the cost comparison between a 1999AO10 mission vs. a Deimos or Phobos mission. If the costs aren't that much larger for a Mars orbital mission but using 1999AO10 as an intermediate step delays a Deimos/Phobos mission for 7-10 years would mean that a concious decision could be made to "skip" an asteroid mission.
At the end, I just hope NASA gets its act together and tries to reduce costs of deep space missions. Does it really make sense to expense 20 billion for a HSF asteroid mission with a 15 year lead time? Can't we do that sooner or at least for less money?
AFAICT, the issue is the length of the Mars mission, not that it's either / or with NEO.
CLLS needs to be more efficient for 4x the duration.
Total radiation dose will build up over the longer mission.
As impatient as I am I don't think that 2030+ is over-cautious for a two-year Mars-moon mission. There is a lot to learn before this can happen.
NEO mission is intended to be undertaken as soon as it becomes feasible, and will teach lessons that feed into the Mars transit.
Indeed, this will be the culmination of a series of less ambitious test missions. Part of my problem with FY2011 is that it doesn't seem to begin BLEO test flights early enough (ie this decade) for NEO 2025 to be feasible.
cheers, Martin
-
bleh. The Moon is a NEO. It's just regular. And big.
Regardless of whether it delays Mars a bit, I'm still firmly of the opinion that the Moon is the only destination which can be delivered quickly enough (DIRECT-style, ULA-style) to avoid Congress reclaiming NASA's budget for something else. Even if it has to start as missions of a few days and build up from there.
cheers, Martin
Edit: ie trade 6-month life support / radiation shielding (NEO) for a larger delta-V (Lunar descent/ascent), which is ultimately a matter of brute-force mass-into-orbit, or propellant depots.
-
bleh. The Moon is a NEO. It's just regular. And big.
Regardless of whether it delays Mars a bit, I'm still firmly of the opinion that the Moon is the only destination which can be delivered quickly enough (DIRECT-style, ULA-style) to avoid Congress reclaiming NASA's budget for something else. Even if it has to start as missions of a few days and build up from there.
I don't think a criteria like that would stop congress from de-funding ANYTHING. Or on the flip side: "NASA, you spent all that money, got to the moon, and now we have even more moon rocks. Sorry, nothing left for NEO or a Mars flyby mission"
Everything is open to cancellation. Everything. You just pay the exit clause penalty, that's all. That's Obama had in his budget: cancel everthing being developed for the long term, focus on the short term. Pay the people off. Pay for it all over again in another 5 years time.
Flexible path, fixed path...it doesn't matter. We should just be thankful we're getting something to keep what many of us consider our 'hobby' alive, compared to others keeping their 'livelyhood' alive, their families fed, and a roof over their heads.
But anyway, a NEO it is, so let's get with it and make it happen. :)
-
The total mass of the inner solar system asteroids (everything not a planet or moon inside of Jupiter) is just about 4% of the mass of the Moon. And half of that is in the four largest asteroids. In other words, the Moon isn't just big; it's bloody enormous.
While one or two visits to an earth-crossing asteroid could be useful, we actually quite a lot about them already (from meteorites). Otherwise, if you are going to an asteroid, go to an exciting one: Pallas, Vesta, or especially Ceres. Indeed, Ceres is not only almost certainly the most complex and least understood asteroid, it actually has the potential for extant, current life in its deep interior (much more so than Mars, in fact). Plus, it's much easier to land on or take off from than either Mars or the Moon...
And if you're not going to an asteroid, and unless someone invents warp drive tomorrow, the Moon hands-down will deliver the most science bang for the buck. But note that the Augustine Commission had no planetary scientists on it...
-
bleh. The Moon is a NEO. It's just regular. And big.
Regardless of whether it delays Mars a bit, I'm still firmly of the opinion that the Moon is the only destination which can be delivered quickly enough (DIRECT-style, ULA-style) to avoid Congress reclaiming NASA's budget for something else. Even if it has to start as missions of a few days and build up from there.
cheers, Martin
Edit: ie trade 6-month life support / radiation shielding (NEO) for a larger delta-V (Lunar descent/ascent), which is ultimately a matter of brute-force mass-into-orbit, or propellant depots.
I agree, although I find asteroid missions particularlly interesting. Moon first to prove we still can and to test all that juicy new tech then on to asteroids.
"The moon is an NEO. Just regular. And big."
:o ROFLOL :D
-
The total mass of the inner solar system asteroids (everything not a planet or moon inside of Jupiter) is just about 4% of the mass of the Moon. And half of that is in the four largest asteroids. In other words, the Moon isn't just big; it's bloody enormous.
Warp drive not needed. Just the ability to spend months BEO. Ability short jaunts to the moon do not require. Nor will develop because they are not required. I mean 2 weeks at the week two times a year with nothing going in LEO is NOT a space program.
No Lander needed either. This plan gets us closer to real exploration than short missions to nearby objects. This plan allows us to choose to land at a later date rather than try to develop rocket, Lander, capsule all at once. In fact the old plan couldn't even do that and put off everything but the capsule and the non moon rocket.
In terms of science depends. Just about all meteoroids on earth have fallen through the earth's atmosphere and many have been exposed to hundreds if not thousands of years of weathering. There are few fresh samples unaltered by a 3000+ degree plung. There are a wide vartity of near earth objects.
A craft desgined for NEO is a much better bais for moon missions and mars missons than one designed strickly for the moon(like Apollo and it’s short life support). You could linger in LLO longer and have a wider choice of landing spots.
-
The total mass of the inner solar system asteroids (everything not a planet or moon inside of Jupiter) is just about 4% of the mass of the Moon. And half of that is in the four largest asteroids. In other words, the Moon isn't just big; it's bloody enormous.
The downside of which is that it's gravity well is deep, both directions, and has to be descended entirely propulsively. It's only virtue from an engineering-difficulty perspective is that it's short-duration, permitting open-loop life support.
While one or two visits to an earth-crossing asteroid could be useful, we actually quite a lot about them already (from meteorites). Otherwise, if you are going to an asteroid, go to an exciting one: Pallas, Vesta, or especially Ceres. Indeed, Ceres is not only almost certainly the most complex and least understood asteroid, it actually has the potential for extant, current life in its deep interior (much more so than Mars, in fact). Plus, it's much easier to land on or take off from than either Mars or the Moon...
Agreed that Ceres would be fascinating, but if you want science, send robots. And, as the Obama plan provides funding for, do tech development missions like SEP and ASRG.
And if you're not going to an asteroid, and unless someone invents warp drive tomorrow, the Moon hands-down will deliver the most science bang for the buck. But note that the Augustine Commission had no planetary scientists on it...
Note that the planetary scientists themselves set scientific priorities via the decadal surveys, and apart from Lunar Prospector (pocket change), the US flew no pure science missions to the moon (IIRC?) between Apollo and LRO/LCROSS (which were themselves driven by the politics of Constellation). That speaks volumes about the priorities of the planetary scientists: Mars, NEOs, outer planets, inner planets, all above Luna. If that's changing for Astro2010, do tell.
-Alex
-
I agree, although I find asteroid missions particularlly interesting. Moon first to prove we still can and to test all that juicy new tech then on to asteroids.
As far as I can tell Obama's plans does not include either a Lunar lander or a martian lander. I suspect one reason he's not interested in Return to The Moon is because of the large costs involved in building a lander. NEO only requires Orion
-
The downside of which is that it's gravity well is deep, both directions, and has to be descended entirely propulsively. It's only virtue from an engineering-difficulty perspective is that it's short-duration, permitting open-loop life support.
No, Earth is deep gravity well. A circa-1944 V-2 could reach Earth from the surface of the Moon. It's not that hard. And anyone who tells you different is either an unimaginative engineer or a parrot.
Agreed that Ceres would be fascinating, but if you want science, send robots. And, as the Obama plan provides funding for, do tech development missions like SEP and ASRG.
There is absolutely, positively not reason why you can't do science with a manned mission. It's just that NASA HSF is run by engineers who don't understand or care about science and just want to build big rockets and space stations and prop depots and figure out the uses later. The "Flexible Plan" is emblematic of this. It's like letting the inmates run the asylum!
And we don't need extra funding for lab-bench test of SEP or Stirling engines. We know they work; there's an SEP rocket on its way to Ceres for goodness sake! What we need is actual missions using that technology. But that's too ambitious-sounding for this administration...
Note that the planetary scientists themselves set scientific priorities via the decadal surveys, and apart from Lunar Prospector (pocket change), the US flew no pure science missions to the moon (IIRC?) between Apollo and LRO/LCROSS (which were themselves driven by the politics of Constellation). That speaks volumes about the priorities of the planetary scientists: Mars, NEOs, outer planets, inner planets, all above Luna. If that's changing for Astro2010, do tell.
No, that speaks volumes of what they thought they could get funded. Note that NASA successfully sent nothing to Mars between 1975 and 1996, a similar span of time between Apollo 17 in 1972 and Clementine in 1994. And both Clementine and Pathfinder were shoestring missions that barely made it to the pad.
I am an actual planetary scientist, a minor bodies specialist in fact, and can tell you that given the choice, the vast majority of us would never favor an unmanned mission to an asteroid over a manned one. The guaranteed return is just so much greater. However, because of the way NASA and NRC is set up, there is little opportunity to express this support. I was at several of the decadal survey meetings last fall and it was made clear that any manned missions or anything to do with CxP was beyond the scope of the survey. So don't take its lack to mean anything beyond bureaucratic baliwicks...
-
The total mass of the inner solar system asteroids (everything not a planet or moon inside of Jupiter) is just about 4% of the mass of the Moon. And half of that is in the four largest asteroids. In other words, the Moon isn't just big; it's bloody enormous.
The downside of which is that it's gravity well is deep, both directions, and has to be descended entirely propulsively. It's only virtue from an engineering-difficulty perspective is that it's short-duration, permitting open-loop life support.
Not the only virtue. Piled regolith can be used for radiation shielding. These both allow early, short-duration missions.
It is also possible to abort back to Earth in the event of an emergency. As an analogy, imagine trying to operate ISS without that Soyuz lifeboat!
CLLS & improved radiation shielding can be introduced and proved on later, longer duration missions.
It becomes a lot easier to countenance a 6-month-plus NEO mission once this low-TRL hardware has been refined and proved in Lunar missions. I shudder to think how bad the pLOC will be for the first NEO crew without a long programme of proving this hardware first.
cheers, Martin
-
Note that the planetary scientists themselves set scientific priorities via the decadal surveys, and apart from Lunar Prospector (pocket change), the US flew no pure science missions to the moon (IIRC?) between Apollo and LRO/LCROSS (which were themselves driven by the politics of Constellation). That speaks volumes about the priorities of the planetary scientists: Mars, NEOs, outer planets, inner planets, all above Luna. If that's changing for Astro2010, do tell.
No, that speaks volumes of what they thought they could get funded. Note that NASA successfully sent nothing to Mars between 1975 and 1996, a similar span of time between Apollo 17 in 1972 and Clementine in 1994. And both Clementine and Pathfinder were shoestring missions that barely made it to the pad.
I am an actual planetary scientist, a minor bodies specialist in fact, and can tell you that given the choice, the vast majority of us would never favor an unmanned mission to an asteroid over a manned one. The guaranteed return is just so much greater. However, because of the way NASA and NRC is set up, there is little opportunity to express this support. I was at several of the decadal survey meetings last fall and it was made clear that any manned missions or anything to do with CxP was beyond the scope of the survey. So don't take its lack to mean anything beyond bureaucratic baliwicks...
NASA's Flexible Path documents suggest that Humans would follow a robotic precursor - and they'd be doing different jobs.
Surely the problem justifying robotic probes to the Lunar surface is that Apollo has already plucked the sort of low-hanging fruit that they are capable of. The returned samples have been investigated in much more detail than on-board instruments could achieve.
cheers, Martin
-
The downside of which is that it's gravity well is deep, both directions, and has to be descended entirely propulsively.
No, Earth is deep gravity well. A circa-1944 V-2 could reach Earth from the surface of the Moon. It's not that hard. And anyone who tells you different is either an unimaginative engineer or a parrot.
"Deep" is relative to the technology and mass ratios available. The V-2's mass ratio was, what, ~12:1? For hydrolox energy scales, aluminum-class structural materials, and modern launch costs and launch capacity (or launch rates, if you're using depots), I submit that
it's reasonable to call climbing down and back from Luna's or Mars's gravity well as "deep". Even the basic TLI/TMI-class burn is ~50% fuel mass from LEO, no? What was the mass ratio of the Apollo CM vs. the SIVB stack in LEO? What are the mass ratios for the Mars HSF DRMs, or Mars sample-return? Can we do it at all, technologically? Yes. Can we afford it regularly? Not yet.
Agreed that Ceres would be fascinating, but if you want science, send robots. And, as the Obama plan provides funding for, do tech development missions like SEP and ASRG.
There is absolutely, positively not reason why you can't do science with a manned mission. It's just that NASA HSF is run by engineers who don't understand or care about science and just want to build big rockets and space stations and prop depots and figure out the uses later. The "Flexible Plan" is emblematic of this. It's like letting the inmates run the asylum!
Of course you can do science, tagging along on an HSF mission. All the Apollo guys did, I presume, especially the push for Harrison Schmitt. But is it remotely cost-effective for the science return?
And we don't need extra funding for lab-bench test of SEP or Stirling engines. We know they work; there's an SEP rocket on its way to Ceres for goodness sake! What we need is actual missions using that technology. But that's too ambitious-sounding for this administration...
Agreed on the lab bench, but what we (seem) to need are actual flight demos to push the TRL level, so that missions and PIs are willing to sign up for it. Is this maybe a matter more of perception than reality, in some cases? Dunno. It's absurd that cryogenic fuel transfer has some semi-mystical status -- we've been doing it in the lab for a hundred years. It's "just" dewar bottles and stainless steel and vacuum transfer lines and a little He ullage gas. Apparently we need to fly a whole autonomous mission to prove it out. But the engineers retort that rockets and spaceflight fail for the simplest reasons, and the distance from the lab to the "it's foolproof" is a long long way.
Note that the planetary scientists themselves set scientific priorities via the decadal surveys, and apart from Lunar Prospector (pocket change), the US flew no pure science missions to the moon (IIRC?) between Apollo and LRO/LCROSS (which were themselves driven by the politics of Constellation). That speaks volumes about the priorities of the planetary scientists: Mars, NEOs, outer planets, inner planets, all above Luna. If that's changing for Astro2010, do tell.
No, that speaks volumes of what they thought they could get funded. Note that NASA successfully sent nothing to Mars between 1975 and 1996, a similar span of time between Apollo 17 in 1972 and Clementine in 1994. And both Clementine and Pathfinder were shoestring missions that barely made it to the pad.
I think your example supports the point, actually. It's been asserted that shuttle starved out many science payloads in that timeframe. (It also took out the high-energy massy launch capability for flagship missions of Titan IIIE, and again with Centaur-G, a capability only restored to science in the last few years with Atlas V.) You could budget to fling a reasonable science payload on Delta-II, but the costs to land that kind of mass on the surface of the moon or Mars were too much. Pathfinder found a way to do it without a Viking-scale effort, twenty years later.
Put another way, the science return from Venus Express has got to be a lot less interesting than from a Neptune Orbiter. But one is doable at reasonable costs, and one is not.
I am an actual planetary scientist, a minor bodies specialist in fact, and can tell you that given the choice, the vast majority of us would never favor an unmanned mission to an asteroid over a manned one. The guaranteed return is just so much greater. However, because of the way NASA and NRC is set up, there is little opportunity to express this support. I was at several of the decadal survey meetings last fall and it was made clear that any manned missions or anything to do with CxP was beyond the scope of the survey. So don't take its lack to mean anything beyond bureaucratic baliwicks...
Glad to meet a fellow scientist on these threads. But I'm puzzled by your remark -- do you really assert that y'all would give up all of SMD for a decade just to land a pair of boots on Eros??
-Alex
-
"Deep" is relative to the technology and mass ratios available. The V-2's mass ratio was, what, ~12:1? For hydrolox energy scales, aluminum-class structural materials, and modern launch costs and launch capacity (or launch rates, if you're using depots), I submit that
it's reasonable to call climbing down and back from Luna's or Mars's gravity well as "deep". Even the basic TLI/TMI-class burn is ~50% fuel mass from LEO, no? What was the mass ratio of the Apollo CM vs. the SIVB stack in LEO? What are the mass ratios for the Mars HSF DRMs, or Mars sample-return? Can we do it at all, technologically? Yes. Can we afford it regularly? Not yet.
Yes, it's fairly deep (about 9 km/s for Human return, IIRC), but that's easily within range of a pair of SDLV launches, even using the Altair lander (and lets face it, that's pretty mass-inefficient).
There's something to be said for substituting brute-force heavy launch (that we can easily do) for technologies that we hope will become available in a decade or two's time.
cheers, Martin
-
bleh. The Moon is a NEO. It's just regular. And big.
CORRECTION!! The Moon is a WORLD!!! >:(
-
Purely FWIW:
To me, the big advantage of NEO and other asteroid missions is that you can use broadly the same equipment on them as you do on lunar missions. You just use them in different ways. Instead of using the bulk of the propellent in the lander for lunar landing and ascent, instead you are using it for the ROI from the target object. Additionally, you can fit all the surface instrument packages and MMUs for asteroid exploration into the SEP racks on a lunar lander. You simply add harpoons to the landing struts of your lunar lander to make it small asteroid-ready.
The only significant unique mission component required for asteroid missions that cannot be used for lunar missions is the hab/consumables storage module. However, I suspect that this could potentially be a fairly simple vehicle, perhaps a modified ATV or even a Bigelow module mounted between the CRV and lander.
With smaller objects, you do not even have to undock the lander but simply 'dock' the entire stack onto the target object. With only theoretical levels of gravity, there would be no significant structural load issues involved with the lander being in contact with the object whilst the hab and CRV sit 'on top' of it.
Because of this, lunar and NEO missions go very well together. NEO missions without lunar landings do not go so well together and leave an 'exploration' program with big gaps. That is why "we've been there already" will soon be relegated to the same scrap-heap as "potatoe". The trick is to develop the hab and lander first and then tell Congress: "Oh, look! We can go to the Moon too! Cool!"
-
To me, the big advantage of NEO and other asteroid missions is that you can use broadly the same equipment on them as you do on lunar missions. You just use them in different ways.
...
...
Not sure what you're saying. To me a NEO mission and a lunar mission are like apples and oranges, with only the launch vehicle and crew return vehicle being the same or somewhat similar. As would be the case for a mission to Mars.
- But a Moon mission does not require a hab for the trip, but does need one for the lunar base. The opposite is more or less true for an asteroid mission.
- A lunar mission requires a lander, an asteroid mission does not (in the usual sense).
- A lunar mission, to make long term economic sense, would have to part of a long term program to establish a permanent base on the Moon. Not so for an asteroid mission.
- science equipment for a lunar mission would probably be designed to stay on the Moon for a long time and be reused by future missions. Long term experiments could be carried out on the Moon, but a NEO mission might mainly be a "gather as much rocks as you can" mission.
- there's no need for asteroid rovers so no overlap there either with a lunar mission
-
Purely FWIW: The trick is to develop the hab and lander first and then tell Congress: "Oh, look! We can go to the Moon too! Cool!"
We shouldn't need "tricks". We should have a viable plan.
-
Purely FWIW: The trick is to develop the hab and lander first and then tell Congress: "Oh, look! We can go to the Moon too! Cool!"
We shouldn't need "tricks". We should have a viable plan.
Why isn't this one viable? Seriously? We get lunar and asteroid capability and, thanks to the long-range hab, orbiter capability for the entire inner solar system. Unfortunately, drawing a slight veil over The Powers That Be's eyes so that we get as much capability before they realise that we've passed several possible cut-off points is a necessary survival tool.
@ Garrett,
I was focussing mostly on spacecraft. You can use the landing struts on a lunar lander (with harpoons) to 'dock' with a target small asteroid. By placing the spacecraft on the surface, you have virtually unlimited access to the surface as you will not need to cancel out the rotation of the object itself when moving around the surface. Of course, with the smallest (10-20m-class) meteoroid-sized NEOs, even a 'docking' is impossible. However, larger Earth-grazers could use a landing platform.
If you want to go into equipment specifics, it should be possible to modify some lunar SEPs for use on asteroids, both large and small. Naturally, some of the sensors would be unique to different classes of object. Some would be unique to just a single mission.
In all cases, 'flexibility' is the key word. As much Buck Rogers for as little buck as possible. Optimisation is a wonderful dream in a world of near-unlimited budgets but isn't ever really going to happen. Use common basic designs for the Mars and lunar habs. Base the asteroid lander on the lunar lander. Use aerocapture with any planet with an atmosphere. Use the MTV as the basis of an LEO-to-LLO shuttle. The list goes on.
-
Of course you can do science, tagging along on an HSF mission. All the Apollo guys did, I presume, especially the push for Harrison Schmitt. But is it remotely cost-effective for the science return?
Stephen Squyres recently said that the 5 years of science done by the Mars rovers could have been done in 1 week by a human. From this I would extrapolate that a mission lasting even a month would produce more science than decades of robotics.
It isn't reasonable to expect robotics to get all the answers for you or to do it in a reasonable timeframe, however robotics are necessary to find the places we need to go, and in other cases, (venus, etc.) telerobotics may be the only way humans will even get near it.
-
Of course you can do science, tagging along on an HSF mission. All the Apollo guys did, I presume, especially the push for Harrison Schmitt. But is it remotely cost-effective for the science return?
Stephen Squyres recently said that the 5 years of science done by the Mars rovers could have been done in 1 week by a human. From this I would extrapolate that a mission lasting even a month would produce more science than decades of robotics.
And the MERs cost ~$1 billion combined and were on red soil in 2004, and the NASA DRM would come in at a good chunk out of a $trillion and two decades.
Not even the same ballgame.
Also, the MERs are on (opposite) sides of the planet, and we don't yet know how to engineer human air transportation on Mars.
-Alex
-
The trick is to develop the hab and lander first and then tell Congress: "Oh, look! We can go to the Moon too! Cool!"
A lunar landing is not actually ruled out of the new plan, it just isn't the first destination. I remember Bolden saying in one of the hearings "and we are going back to the Moon". And Garver said in an interview with Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/lori-garver-future-of-NASA) about a week before the speech:
That exploration will include the government leading a return to the moon, visits to near-Earth asteroids and humanity's first steps on Mars.
Not necessarily in that order or course. Also, President Obama said in the speech (http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html):
Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. There’s a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do.
That doesn't rule out a lunar landing.
-
That doesn't rule out a lunar landing.
But it does rule one out before 2025, when he proposes the first exploration missions to asteroids. Basically, all of the goals are so far in the future, it's laughable.
-
Both robotics and HSF have their place. The FY11 plan is all about developing the infrastructure to enable regular human missions to places like mars in an affordable way.
If Congress instead chooses to stretch out budgets and drop critical research then I agree with you that talk of exploring Mars by humans is a nice goal but not realistic. Your budget argument only makes sense if we abandon attempts at new strategies (prop depots, cyclers, etc.) and try to go at it Apollo style.
Of course you can do science, tagging along on an HSF mission. All the Apollo guys did, I presume, especially the push for Harrison Schmitt. But is it remotely cost-effective for the science return?
Stephen Squyres recently said that the 5 years of science done by the Mars rovers could have been done in 1 week by a human. From this I would extrapolate that a mission lasting even a month would produce more science than decades of robotics.
And the MERs cost ~$1 billion combined and were on red soil in 2004, and the NASA DRM would come in at a good chunk out of a $trillion and two decades.
Not even the same ballgame.
Also, the MERs are on (opposite) sides of the planet, and we don't yet know how to engineer human air transportation on Mars.
-Alex
-
I concur that lunar landings are not out since NASA discussed them on one of the conference sessions. What wasn't clear however was lander development, since they seemed to be most interested in inflatable descent technology that would seem to require an atmosphere.
The trick is to develop the hab and lander first and then tell Congress: "Oh, look! We can go to the Moon too! Cool!"
A lunar landing is not actually ruled out of the new plan, it just isn't the first destination. I remember Bolden saying in one of the hearings "and we are going back to the Moon". And Garver said in an interview with Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/lori-garver-future-of-NASA) about a week before the speech:
That exploration will include the government leading a return to the moon, visits to near-Earth asteroids and humanity's first steps on Mars.
Not necessarily in that order or course. Also, President Obama said in the speech (http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html):
Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. There’s a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do.
That doesn't rule out a lunar landing.
-
It's probably been posted elsewhere but here is the flexible path video from NASA that was released on April 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVS8mjLiP90
-
That doesn't rule out a lunar landing.
But it does rule one out before 2025, when he proposes the first exploration missions to asteroids. Basically, all of the goals are so far in the future, it's laughable.
Agreed. He might as well have promised stargates and warp drives.
It would be just as meaningful
Constellation at least had destinations and hardware being designed and worked on now. Not sure what start over and begin again in five years is supposed to accomplish other then waste more time.
-
That doesn't rule out a lunar landing.
But it does rule one out before 2025, when he proposes the first exploration missions to asteroids. Basically, all of the goals are so far in the future, it's laughable.
Agreed. He might as well have promised stargates and warp drives.
It would be just as meaningful
Constellation at least had destinations and hardware being designed and worked on now. Not sure what start over and begin again in five years is supposed to accomplish other then waste more time.
While I do agree about the long time frames I can think of several things that might be accomplished.
1. reduce the cost of manned spaceflight via commercial
2. Improve our technology so that we don't build stuff we can't afford yet(Apollo).
3. gain/expand capabilities in space like propellant transfer of cryogenics, and automatic docking(on larger craft).
Man spaceflight technology has been stagnate and I think new ideas/fresh approaches are needed.
-
If the abilities Pathfinder mentions are able to be developed during this five year period then we will be 30 years ahead of where we would have been had we continued to plow money into a solid rocket booster based capability that was plagued with problems.
It is a shame we did not begin this effort 4 years ago, but I guess its better to start late than never.
-
Both robotics and HSF have their place. The FY11 plan is all about developing the infrastructure to enable regular human missions to places like mars in an affordable way.
If Congress instead chooses to stretch out budgets and drop critical research then I agree with you that talk of exploring Mars by humans is a nice goal but not realistic. Your budget argument only makes sense if we abandon attempts at new strategies (prop depots, cyclers, etc.) and try to go at it Apollo style.
How is the FY11 plan affordable?
I am not just being critical of it, but I genuinely do not see any dramatic 'cost saving' advances to be made in a 5-10 year research program (at least none that are being seriously discussed in open debate).
A new Kerolox engine will perform in the same ballpark and for the same cost as existing hydrolox engines - certainly nothing here to reduce the cost per kg to LEO by even 20%. The total number of engines built would have more impact on the cost to orbit.
Super propulsions like Plasma and Ion are unsuitable for launch, thus of no impact until the 2025+ missions.
NTR are not under development (and for good reason) although these might change ISP enough to really impact costs.
The areas that COULD impact costs and ARE being discussed include EELV based Flexible Architectures and Fuel Depots. As far as I know, neither of these needs any real research.
If EELVs and Fuel Depots are the path forward, then why doesn't the FY11 plan just shift 5 years and start development right now. There are no technology 'game changers' on the horizon.
I don't see anything that will change the Augustine Commission cost estimates, so why burn Billions of dollars with unnecessary delays and useful - but not game changing - research.
-
Both robotics and HSF have their place. The FY11 plan is all about developing the infrastructure to enable regular human missions to places like mars in an affordable way.
If Congress instead chooses to stretch out budgets and drop critical research then I agree with you that talk of exploring Mars by humans is a nice goal but not realistic. Your budget argument only makes sense if we abandon attempts at new strategies (prop depots, cyclers, etc.) and try to go at it Apollo style.
How is the FY11 plan affordable?
I am not just being critical of it, but I genuinely do not see any dramatic 'cost saving' advances to be made in a 5-10 year research program (at least none that are being seriously discussed in open debate).
A new Kerolox engine will perform in the same ballpark and for the same cost as existing hydrolox engines - certainly nothing here to reduce the cost per kg to LEO by even 20%. The total number of engines built would have more impact on the cost to orbit.
Super propulsions like Plasma and Ion are unsuitable for launch, thus of no impact until the 2025+ missions.
NTR are not under development (and for good reason) although these might change ISP enough to really impact costs.
The areas that COULD impact costs and ARE being discussed include EELV based Flexible Architectures and Fuel Depots. As far as I know, neither of these needs any real research.
If EELVs and Fuel Depots are the path forward, then why doesn't the FY11 plan just shift 5 years and start development right now. There are no technology 'game changers' on the horizon.
I don't see anything that will change the Augustine Commission cost estimates, so why burn Billions of dollars with unnecessary delays and usefull - but not game changing - research.
You make a lot of assumptions here.
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k? Scale that up, would be a very cost-affordable HLV engine, yes?
-
You make a lot of assumptions here.
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k? Scale that up, would be a very cost-affordable HLV engine, yes?
My only real assumption is that comparable (both regen or both ablative, similar total thrust) Hydrolox and Kerolox engines, produced in comparable numbers will have similar costs.
The concept that an 'affordable' program involves building HLV engines in bulk seems less likely. Twenty-five Jupiter 130 launches per year would dramaticly reduce costs using existing technology, but who has 1,750 tons of stuff that needs transport to LEO? Kerolox will not change that.
As I said, forgetting about whether the research will actually be successful, what technology would reduce cost to orbit by even 20% within a 5-10 year period? The FY11 plan seems to expect a breakthrough that will alter one of the important paramters in the basic rocket equation. How else will costs be dramaticly reduced from all of the options available to us today? We have commercial access to space already. Flying people will not halve the cost per kg to orbit from what communication sattelites pay.
-
...
Of course, with the smallest (10-20m-class) meteoroid-sized NEOs, even a 'docking' is impossible. However, larger Earth-grazers could use a landing platform.
...
Probably a naive question, but I just gotta ask: has it ever been suggested to "capture" a very small asteroid, James Bond style (You Only Live Twice). Before you think I'm mad, I'm not suggesting actually moving the asteroid, but simply surrounding it with an inflatable shell (Bigelow style), i.e. the shell and asteroid are in the same solar orbit. Bigelow's Sundancer will be around 6m in diameter and 8.7m long, so the order of magnitude is the same as a 10 - 20m asteroid.
Then pressurise the shell and allow astronauts to work in a shirt sleeve environment?
I presume the main problem with inflatable craft is that the docking ports are not inflatable and are limited in size to the launch vehicle's diameter?
I'm starting to regret asking this question, so I'm gonna press the "Post" button before I change my mind ...
-
...
Of course, with the smallest (10-20m-class) meteoroid-sized NEOs, even a 'docking' is impossible. However, larger Earth-grazers could use a landing platform.
...
Probably a naive question, but I just gotta ask: has it ever been suggested to "capture" a very small asteroid, James Bond style (You Only Live Twice). Before you think I'm mad, I'm not suggesting actually moving the asteroid, but simply surrounding it with an inflatable shell (Bigelow style), i.e. the shell and asteroid are in the same solar orbit. Bigelow's Sundancer will be around 6m in diameter and 8.7m long, so the order of magnitude is the same as a 10 - 20m asteroid.
Then pressurise the shell and allow astronauts to work in a shirt sleeve environment?
I presume the main problem with inflatable craft is that the docking ports are not inflatable and are limited in size to the launch vehicle's diameter?
I'm starting to regret asking this question, so I'm gonna press the "Post" button before I change my mind ...
I'd vote to fund it just on the merit of seeing if it could be done.
IIRC, the Apollo crew commented that the moon smelled bad (inside the lander). I would imagine that the asteroid might have similar issues ... but what are a few heavy metal compounds between friends.
-
... what technology would reduce cost to orbit by even 20% within a 5-10 year period? The FY11 plan seems to expect a breakthrough that will alter one of the important paramters in the basic rocket equation. How else will costs be dramaticly reduced from all of the options available to us today?
Your logic is quite compelling. Look at it a different way, though. Suppose the plan were to mothball the NASA capability to do heavy-lift engine and vehicle design and integration, and then restart that capability in 10 years. Would the cost for that be substantially different than the amount available for heavy-lift "R&D" in the FY11 budget proposal?
-
You make a lot of assumptions here.
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k? Scale that up, would be a very cost-affordable HLV engine, yes?
My only real assumption is that comparable (both regen or both ablative, similar total thrust) Hydrolox and Kerolox engines, produced in comparable numbers will have similar costs.
The concept that an 'affordable' program involves building HLV engines in bulk seems less likely. Twenty-five Jupiter 130 launches per year would dramaticly reduce costs using existing technology, but who has 1,750 tons of stuff that needs transport to LEO? Kerolox will not change that.
As I said, forgetting about whether the research will actually be successful, what technology would reduce cost to orbit by even 20% within a 5-10 year period? The FY11 plan seems to expect a breakthrough that will alter one of the important paramters in the basic rocket equation. How else will costs be dramaticly reduced from all of the options available to us today? We have commercial access to space already. Flying people will not halve the cost per kg to orbit from what communication sattelites pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
Electric propulsion tugs could be used to efficiently pre-place propellant depots and equipment. Also, by separating cargo and crew, you can use more efficient trajectories for the cargo than you would if it has to go quickly with the crew, even if you're just using chemical rockets.
Also, in the case of propellant depots, you aren't necessarily changing the rocket equation itself, but since many small launches can be used for the propellant, a reusable tanker craft makes sense (both the on-orbit tanker and the launch vehicle can be reusable, especially for LEO depots). Reusable makes sense if the spacecraft's mission is short (the tanker spacecraft just needs to rendezvous with the depot in LEO and return, less than a week I'm sure) and many times a year (small launch vehicles, while more expensive per pound at the same number of launches per year as a larger launch vehicle, can reach above 40 launches per year for the same amount of mass in orbit as four HLV launches a year, which is firmly reusable launch vehicle territory).
Propellant depots combined with high-Isp solar-electric propulsion (slow but efficient) really does change the rocket equation, the same way that petroleum is transported by pipeline or ship or rail instead of jet airplanes, which is less than 10% as efficient per ton-mile of freight.
-
You make a lot of assumptions here.
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k? Scale that up, would be a very cost-affordable HLV engine, yes?
My only real assumption is that comparable (both regen or both ablative, similar total thrust) Hydrolox and Kerolox engines, produced in comparable numbers will have similar costs.
The concept that an 'affordable' program involves building HLV engines in bulk seems less likely. Twenty-five Jupiter 130 launches per year would dramaticly reduce costs using existing technology, but who has 1,750 tons of stuff that needs transport to LEO? Kerolox will not change that.
As I said, forgetting about whether the research will actually be successful, what technology would reduce cost to orbit by even 20% within a 5-10 year period? The FY11 plan seems to expect a breakthrough that will alter one of the important paramters in the basic rocket equation. How else will costs be dramaticly reduced from all of the options available to us today? We have commercial access to space already. Flying people will not halve the cost per kg to orbit from what communication sattelites pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
Electric propulsion tugs could be used to efficiently pre-place propellant depots and equipment. Also, by separating cargo and crew, you can use more efficient trajectories for the cargo than you would if it has to go quickly with the crew, even if you're just using chemical rockets.
Also, in the case of propellant depots, you aren't necessarily changing the rocket equation itself, but since many small launches can be used for the propellant, a reusable tanker craft makes sense (both the on-orbit tanker and the launch vehicle can be reusable, especially for LEO depots). Reusable makes sense if the spacecraft's mission is short (the tanker spacecraft just needs to rendezvous with the depot in LEO and return, less than a week I'm sure) and many times a year (small launch vehicles, while more expensive per pound at the same number of launches per year as a larger launch vehicle, can reach above 40 launches per year for the same amount of mass in orbit as four HLV launches a year, which is firmly reusable launch vehicle territory).
Propellant depots combined with high-Isp solar-electric propulsion (slow but efficient) really does change the rocket equation, the same way that petroleum is transported by pipeline or ship or rail instead of jet airplanes, which is less than 10% as efficient per ton-mile of freight.
Are any major breakthroughs needed for SEP or Depots?
I was under the impression that the answer is no.
So why wait 5 years to begin the design?
If THAT is the POTUS's plan, then he should just say so and start designing TODAY.
I prefer Direct over Flexible EELV, but either plan seems workable without a decade worth of research. How will the RESEARCH lower the costs more than a small margin?
-
Please see Robot beats post above. We don't have fuel depot technology, VASMIR technology, TransHab, so all of those things need to be developed with R and D. Once they are available the cost of in space transit will come down by a fair amount. See Chang Diaz website.
-
You make a lot of assumptions here.
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k? Scale that up, would be a very cost-affordable HLV engine, yes?
My only real assumption is that comparable (both regen or both ablative, similar total thrust) Hydrolox and Kerolox engines, produced in comparable numbers will have similar costs.
The concept that an 'affordable' program involves building HLV engines in bulk seems less likely. Twenty-five Jupiter 130 launches per year would dramaticly reduce costs using existing technology, but who has 1,750 tons of stuff that needs transport to LEO? Kerolox will not change that.
As I said, forgetting about whether the research will actually be successful, what technology would reduce cost to orbit by even 20% within a 5-10 year period? The FY11 plan seems to expect a breakthrough that will alter one of the important paramters in the basic rocket equation. How else will costs be dramaticly reduced from all of the options available to us today? We have commercial access to space already. Flying people will not halve the cost per kg to orbit from what communication sattelites pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
Electric propulsion tugs could be used to efficiently pre-place propellant depots and equipment. Also, by separating cargo and crew, you can use more efficient trajectories for the cargo than you would if it has to go quickly with the crew, even if you're just using chemical rockets.
Also, in the case of propellant depots, you aren't necessarily changing the rocket equation itself, but since many small launches can be used for the propellant, a reusable tanker craft makes sense (both the on-orbit tanker and the launch vehicle can be reusable, especially for LEO depots). Reusable makes sense if the spacecraft's mission is short (the tanker spacecraft just needs to rendezvous with the depot in LEO and return, less than a week I'm sure) and many times a year (small launch vehicles, while more expensive per pound at the same number of launches per year as a larger launch vehicle, can reach above 40 launches per year for the same amount of mass in orbit as four HLV launches a year, which is firmly reusable launch vehicle territory).
Propellant depots combined with high-Isp solar-electric propulsion (slow but efficient) really does change the rocket equation, the same way that petroleum is transported by pipeline or ship or rail instead of jet airplanes, which is less than 10% as efficient per ton-mile of freight.
Are any major breakthroughs needed for SEP or Depots?
I was under the impression that the answer is no.
So why wait 5 years to begin the design?
If THAT is the POTUS's plan, then he should just say so and start designing TODAY.
I prefer Direct over Flexible EELV, but either plan seems workable without a decade worth of research. How will the RESEARCH lower the costs more than a small margin?
I agree with you arthur. And yes I saw and read Robot's post. I will be posting a thread dedicated to how we could leverage existing assets in a variety of ways to begin exploring as soon as possible, sometime soon (when I get enough time to write the whole thing).
-
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k?
not unless you could produce a link backing this up.
-
Probably a naive question, but I just gotta ask: has it ever been suggested to "capture" a very small asteroid, James Bond style (You Only Live Twice). Before you think I'm mad, I'm not suggesting actually moving the asteroid, but simply surrounding it with an inflatable shell (Bigelow style), i.e. the shell and asteroid are in the same solar orbit. Bigelow's Sundancer will be around 6m in diameter and 8.7m long, so the order of magnitude is the same as a 10 - 20m asteroid.
Then pressurise the shell and allow astronauts to work in a shirt sleeve environment?
I presume the main problem with inflatable craft is that the docking ports are not inflatable and are limited in size to the launch vehicle's diameter?
I'm starting to regret asking this question, so I'm gonna press the "Post" button before I change my mind ...
Pretty clever if you ask me. But, and this is a big but, the whole point of going out to NEOs in the first place (at least, if you ask me) is to do science. And, well, exposing surfaces that have been in vacuum for 4.5 billion years or so to air with a significant partial pressure of oxygen does not seem like it would facilitate that. Of course, most of the samples and research that will be done will be done in atmosphere, but it is at least possible to consider samples isolated in vacuum or at least helium/argon/xeon etc. atmospheres until arriving back on Earth, and then handled in nitrogen or something. And certainly at least a few scientists will want that (I would guess that most of those minerals haven't been oxidized either, which could get *real* fun).
-
How is the FY11 plan affordable?
...
I don't see anything that will change the Augustine Commission cost estimates, so why burn Billions of dollars with unnecessary delays and useful - but not game changing - research.
Nail on the head. It's all about promising the universe, but not committing to anything that is the slightest bit risky. It's a shallow political move from a bunch of shallow politicians.
-
...
Of course, with the smallest (10-20m-class) meteoroid-sized NEOs, even a 'docking' is impossible. However, larger Earth-grazers could use a landing platform.
...
Probably a naive question, but I just gotta ask: has it ever been suggested to "capture" a very small asteroid, James Bond style (You Only Live Twice). Before you think I'm mad, I'm not suggesting actually moving the asteroid, but simply surrounding it with an inflatable shell (Bigelow style), i.e. the shell and asteroid are in the same solar orbit. Bigelow's Sundancer will be around 6m in diameter and 8.7m long, so the order of magnitude is the same as a 10 - 20m asteroid.
Then pressurise the shell and allow astronauts to work in a shirt sleeve environment?
I presume the main problem with inflatable craft is that the docking ports are not inflatable and are limited in size to the launch vehicle's diameter?
I'm starting to regret asking this question, so I'm gonna press the "Post" button before I change my mind ...
Random outlandish idea I had after reading this post: What if you took three Bigelow modules and arranged them in parallel around the small asteroid, perhaps with some sort of rigid framework to keep them in place? You could then take some sort of flexible, tear-proof, and impermeable fabric (kind of like that used in the Bigelow module walls) which can be stretched between the three modules, and attach them to the modules using something akin to zippers. Once you have fabric in between all of the modules and surrounding the asteroid, you can then fill up the interior with breathable air, and perhaps have an airlock between one of the modules and the asteroid-including interior. You in essence then create a giant triangular prism-shaped inflatable habitat using the three smaller modules as corners.
Such an arrangement might also be handy for doing shirt-sleeve construction/repair of spacecraft in orbit.
It might be worthwhile to create another thread in the "Advanced concepts" section on "Off-the-wall ideas for things to do with Bigelow modules." It might also be cool to create a simple model of a Bigelow module in SketchUp to quickly portray what some of these things might look like (I'd be happy to do it if I can find some spare time).
-
(removed text for brevity - click on post link to see original quote)
(removed text for brevity - click on post link to see original quote)
Random outlandish idea I had after reading this post: What if you took three Bigelow modules and arranged them in parallel around the small asteroid, perhaps with some sort of rigid framework to keep them in place? You could then take some sort of flexible, tear-proof, and impermeable fabric (kind of like that used in the Bigelow module walls) which can be stretched between the three modules, and attach them to the modules using something akin to zippers. Once you have fabric in between all of the modules and surrounding the asteroid, you can then fill up the interior with breathable air, and perhaps have an airlock between one of the modules and the asteroid-including interior. You in essence then create a giant triangular prism-shaped inflatable habitat using the three smaller modules as corners.
Such an arrangement might also be handy for doing shirt-sleeve construction/repair of spacecraft in orbit.
Yes, quite outlandish :P
But I think you need more than three modules (apexes) to make a prism. I think what you were talking about was a tetrahedron pyramid, which has four apexes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_(geometry)
I don't think you need the Bigelow modules for the apexes, just the Bigelow module inflatable material for the pyramid walls.
It might be worthwhile to create another thread in the "Advanced concepts" section on "Off-the-wall ideas for things to do with Bigelow modules." It might also be cool to create a simple model of a Bigelow module in SketchUp to quickly portray what some of these things might look like (I'd be happy to do it if I can find some spare time).
Good idea, this is off-topic here. But spare time is in short supply for most of us :-\
-
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k?
not unless you could produce a link backing this up.
Why, I speak of course of the X-34's Fastrac engine:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/fastrac.html
I did double check, and the goal was to hit $350k with the Fastrac.
-
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k?
not unless you could produce a link backing this up.
Why, I speak of course of the X-34's Fastrac engine:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/fastrac.html
I did double check, and the goal was to hit $350k with the Fastrac.
... The knowledge used to make the Fastrac ended up being used for the turbopump for SpaceX's Merlin:
http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/
-
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k?
not unless you could produce a link backing this up.
Why, I speak of course of the X-34's Fastrac engine:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/fastrac.html
I did double check, and the goal was to hit $350k with the Fastrac.
... The knowledge used to make the Fastrac ended up being used for the turbopump for SpaceX's Merlin:
http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/
Yup, now if only SpaceX was willing to sell Merlins to other companies.... 8)
-
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k?
not unless you could produce a link backing this up.
Why, I speak of course of the X-34's Fastrac engine:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/fastrac.html
I did double check, and the goal was to hit $350k with the Fastrac.
... The knowledge used to make the Fastrac ended up being used for the turbopump for SpaceX's Merlin:
http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/
Yup, now if only SpaceX was willing to sell Merlins to other companies.... 8)
That's the backup plan if they fail. Not a bad alternative, actually. EDIT: Especially if they do build the Merlin 2 engine before they fail... There's your large domestic kerolox engine. Good investment for the big boys, if SpaceX goes belly-up.
-
Would you believe NASA built a Kerolox engine that could, in volume production, cost under $300k? Scale that up, would be a very cost-affordable HLV engine, yes?
no, because NASA doesn't build engines
-
If Congress instead chooses to stretch out budgets and drop critical research then I agree with you that talk of exploring Mars by humans is a nice goal but not realistic. Your budget argument only makes sense if we abandon attempts at new strategies (prop depots, cyclers, etc.) and try to go at it Apollo style.
I agree.
How is the FY11 plan affordable?
I am not just being critical of it, but I genuinely do not see any dramatic 'cost saving' advances to be made in a 5-10 year research program (at least none that are being seriously discussed in open debate).
A new Kerolox engine will perform in the same ballpark and for the same cost as existing hydrolox engines - certainly nothing here to reduce the cost per kg to LEO by even 20%. The total number of engines built would have more impact on the cost to orbit.
I agree that there's not a lot of reason to expect a class kerolox-core system to be vastly cheaper than hydrolox. The main difference is that SSME-hydrolox (ie, SDLV, ie J-130) is use-it-or-lose-it, and we'd have to start paying the fixed costs for it now at $2-3 billion/year without payloads to use on it until late in the decade.
Super propulsions like Plasma and Ion are unsuitable for launch, thus of no impact until the 2025+ missions.
For LEO, or for deep-space? Solar-powered ion drives exist right now: Deep Space I. VASIMR is the poster child, but more conventional ion drives and solar arrays or even solar-thermal are reasonable technologies for sending infrastructure to Mars.
The areas that COULD impact costs and ARE being discussed include EELV based Flexible Architectures and Fuel Depots. As far as I know, neither of these needs any real research.
If EELVs and Fuel Depots are the path forward, then why doesn't the FY11 plan just shift 5 years and start development right now. There are no technology 'game changers' on the horizon.
I don't see anything that will change the Augustine Commission cost estimates, so why burn Billions of dollars with unnecessary delays and useful - but not game changing - research.
You're right, that strictly speaking, cryogenic fuel transfer, depots, sun shades, and automated docking are not really "research" problems: but they are perceived as "unproven" risks to a science or HSF mission. Thus the need for (D)evelopment missions to advance the lab tech up the TRL tree, to where it can be baselined for SMD or HSF flights.
And we should start Development right now: and that's the wonderful aspect (as I understand it) of the FY 2011 plan.
-Alex
-
http://csis.org/multimedia/audio-nasas-new-vision
In this address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Lori Garver mentions this mission, specifically naming the NEO 1999AO10 as an "intriguing candidate", at 17:22.
Edit: link found via Lori Garver's twitter page (http://twitter.com/Lori_Garver).
-
Super propulsions like Plasma and Ion are unsuitable for launch, thus of no impact until the 2025+ missions.
For LEO, or for deep-space? Solar-powered ion drives exist right now: Deep Space I. VASIMR is the poster child, but more conventional ion drives and solar arrays or even solar-thermal are reasonable technologies for sending infrastructure to Mars.
The areas that COULD impact costs and ARE being discussed include EELV based Flexible Architectures and Fuel Depots. As far as I know, neither of these needs any real research.
If EELVs and Fuel Depots are the path forward, then why doesn't the FY11 plan just shift 5 years and start development right now. There are no technology 'game changers' on the horizon.
I don't see anything that will change the Augustine Commission cost estimates, so why burn Billions of dollars with unnecessary delays and useful - but not game changing - research.
You're right, that strictly speaking, cryogenic fuel transfer, depots, sun shades, and automated docking are not really "research" problems: but they are perceived as "unproven" risks to a science or HSF mission. Thus the need for (D)evelopment missions to advance the lab tech up the TRL tree, to where it can be baselined for SMD or HSF flights.
And we should start Development right now: and that's the wonderful aspect (as I understand it) of the FY 2011 plan.
-Alex
[/quote]
I have long argued that solar thermal potentially has unique advantages that have not been fully appreciated, not the least of which is to use almost anything as propellent.
This has obvious implications for fuel depots. The issue of which propellents to store becomes far less constrained.
In addition, the requisite solar concentrator can double as a solar furnace to facilitate ISRU.
Also the concentrator, via concentrator style PV, can provide electricity at high efficiency and specific power for electric propulsion along with thermal.
I believe solar thermal can be the "game changer" if all of its potential is exploited.
Sol
-
The specific power (W/kg) of solar electric can be just about arbitrarily high (i.e. much higher than even the power conversion electronics and certainly higher than the thruster itself) in the inner solar system if you use thin-film solar arrays, though near-term systems and operational constraints will probably favor either concentrating systems or derivations of the "Ultraflex" concept (the round arrays used for the Phoenix lander), which can have specific power of >500W/kg and >220W/kg, respectively (for megawatt-scale arrays). Ultraflex is here, now, at better than 150W/kg specific power and 30% efficiency and scalable now to 15kW per wing (obviously can have more than one wing, though having more than two adds mass).
-
Move and bump to the HLV section