NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Near Earth Asteroids (HSF) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 03/24/2012 03:50 am
-
Part 2 from the ESD Con Ops Exploration Roadmap Document (L2). This one specific to NEA:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
Enjoy! :)
-
NEO 1999AO10
155 day mission in year 2026
That would be on OK side mission. Short enough for crew safety.
As long as we do not loose site of the Mars missions.
We could have moon missions while we have the NEO mission.
-
NEO 1999AO10
155 day mission in year 2026
That would be on OK side mission. Short enough for crew safety.
As long as we do not loose site of the Mars missions.
...
The Advanced Capability (and full capability) NEA missions have pretty similar (if not identical!) requirements to a manned Mars mission, depending on just how powerful the SEP stage is.
Using low-thrust propulsion, a short-stay Opposition-class mission might need ~20 or so km/s delta-v even from EML1/2, whereas a Conjunction-class mission might need only 12-15km/s from EML1/2. Whether you capture back into EML1/2 (if you do, it's possible to avoid bringing an Orion with you, at least according to Boeing...) or whether you just arrive at high speed in an Orion also affects the delta-v situation, as does the decision to visit Phobos or Deimos or leave the exploration stack at high Mars orbit and just explore the moons with an SEV or even just Orion by itself. And, of course, time-of-flight and if you do a Venus swingby (powered?) and if you get an initial impulsive kick from a CPS all factor in there...
The point is that if you have a powerful enough SEP unit (and a healthy push by an iCPS/CPS and maybe direct entry on return), you can get to Mars orbit and back in the same vehicle as would for an advanced NEA mission. But we're talking Megawatt-class SEP, here.
Good article! :)
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
-
Great article! That's a lot of upmass. Speaking of launch rate, not sure how you improve that with other launchers. You'd need about eight Falcon Heavies?
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
Yes; partly because of budget. To speed up the launch rate, NASA would need a higher Exploration budget and perhaps a third launchpad too. Getting 39A and B ready for the next launches takes time and money. With a Pad 39C the pressure would be off somewhat to refurbish A & B in time for their next launches.
I know that before Apollo and Apollo Applications were cancelled there were plans pencilled in to build 39C. In fact, somewhere here on Nasaspaceflight.com someone posted a picture of the plans. But to build 39C now would probably be at least a $5 billion dollar project. But what an asset it would be for a Heavy Exploration program!!
With those three pads in operation plus 2x pads capable of launching Falcon Heavies I could imagine a big 'BEO' mission being assembled out of a relatively quick 'salvo' campaign of launches. But just a small, dark suspicion of mine: is the SLS launch rate being made to look as unattractive as possible? After all - with 39A & B, NASA used to be able to get up to six or seven Shuttle missions aloft per year. Assuming that launch rate would be stifled or halved by a low budget, would that not still mean that three SLS could be sent aloft in one year? Or is the budgetary situation and my naivety worse than I thought?
-
Lots of info! Thanks for another excellent article Chris.
Having said that I'm no massive fan of going to to a NEA. I'd rather have a moon base.
-
I just had a read of Chris' latest article, "NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids".
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
Not unexpectedly, I believe that the Administration is ill advised to suggest a manned NEO (and now they're calling 'em NEA's, just to be different) mission of any sort in advance of the beginning construction of an intentionally designed permanent human lunar base. In the continual debate on this forum, it is often pointed out that a lunar lander would be necessary for any lunar base, which is obvious, of course. It is then added that a lander for a tumbling rock would be much cheaper to design and build, due only to the shallowness of the expected gravity well, thus this reason alone is a sufficient showstopper for working on a lunar base.
The very first picture in Chris' article shows this to be a completely false analysis. Check out that hab, which is assumed to be "free" in the simplistic argument above. Also have a gander at the "500 Day Configuration" picture.Then there's the SEV picture. Such a craft would probably offer a shirtsleeve environment for the astros to pick at the rock, and take detailed pictures of any possible monolith to be found there. This is probably the "lander" that is thought to be "cheaper" than the passe four legged lunar landers which are illustrated in most lunar proposals.
I can see some of the counter arguments already: But John's proposing a lunar base for four astros, what about all that infrastructure? And how do you feed them for 500 days? And what about the radiation exposure they'll get? And everything has to be launched from Earth? And where's the money?
The lander argument only compares, well, the landers, concluding, falsely, that a lunar manned mission would be impossible. But a NEO? Think of the inspiration to the children! And it's cheaper!
A level playing field would suggest trading the two missions with the same budget and the same duration: 500 days, and put a valuation on the handful of dust, rocks, and ice cubes brought back by the one mission. Compare that value with the other mission of the same cost, providing 500 days of on the ground science, characterizing the ice fields, setting up the power system, assaying the mineral content and geology of a broad region, setting the stage for a new private economy.
But corporate insiders don't like level playing fields, nor do they like the idea of expanding economies of regular people. And it has nothing, really, to do with Dems and Reps; both parties propose impossible dreams of little utility.
There is simply no rational basis to be considering a manned mission to a NEO at this time.
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
Yes; partly because of budget. To speed up the launch rate, NASA would need a higher Exploration budget and perhaps a third launchpad too. Getting 39A and B ready for the next launches takes time and money. With a Pad 39C the pressure would be off somewhat to refurbish A & B in time for their next launches.
I know that before Apollo and Apollo Applications were cancelled there were plans pencilled in to build 39C. In fact, somewhere here on Nasaspaceflight.com someone posted a picture of the plans. But to build 39C now would probably be at least a $5 billion dollar project. But what an asset it would be for a Heavy Exploration program!!
With those three pads in operation plus 2x pads capable of launching Falcon Heavies I could imagine a big 'BEO' mission being assembled out of a relatively quick 'salvo' campaign of launches. But just a small, dark suspicion of mine: is the SLS launch rate being made to look as unattractive as possible? After all - with 39A & B, NASA used to be able to get up to six or seven Shuttle missions aloft per year. Assuming that launch rate would be stifled or halved by a low budget, would that not still mean that three SLS could be sent aloft in one year? Or is the budgetary situation and my naivety worse than I thought?
From what I understood was they had plans to launch as many as 24 shuttles a year before Challenger in early 1986.
Would it be reasonable to think that they might be planning on other launches for SLS in that same time period like for a lunar mission. Alternating the flights between the two. Or it could be as what has been said, mission planned for low budget.
Pad C would not be needed unless flight got close to 24 per year ( highly unlikely though ).
-
I just had a read of Chris' latest article, "NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids".
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
Not unexpectedly, I believe that the Administration is ill advised to suggest a manned NEO (and now they're calling 'em NEA's, just to be different) mission of any sort in advance of the beginning construction of an intentionally designed permanent human lunar base. In the continual debate on this forum, it is often pointed out that a lunar lander would be necessary for any lunar base, which is obvious, of course. It is then added that a lander for a tumbling rock would be much cheaper to design and build, due only to the shallowness of the expected gravity well, thus this reason alone is a sufficient showstopper for working on a lunar base.
The very first picture in Chris' article shows this to be a completely false analysis. Check out that hab, which is assumed to be "free" in the simplistic argument above. Also have a gander at the "500 Day Configuration" picture.Then there's the SEV picture. Such a craft would probably offer a shirtsleeve environment for the astros to pick at the rock, and take detailed pictures of any possible monolith to be found there. This is probably the "lander" that is thought to be "cheaper" than the passe four legged lunar landers which are illustrated in most lunar proposals.
I can see some of the counter arguments already: But John's proposing a lunar base for four astros, what about all that infrastructure? And how do you feed them for 500 days? And what about the radiation exposure they'll get? And everything has to be launched from Earth? And where's the money?
The lander argument only compares, well, the landers, concluding, falsely, that a lunar manned mission would be impossible. But a NEO? Think of the inspiration to the children! And it's cheaper!
A level playing field would suggest trading the two missions with the same budget and the same duration: 500 days, and put a valuation on the handful of dust, rocks, and ice cubes brought back by the one mission. Compare that value with the other mission of the same cost, providing 500 days of on the ground science, characterizing the ice fields, setting up the power system, assaying the mineral content and geology of a broad region, setting the stage for a new private economy.
But corporate insiders don't like level playing fields, nor do they like the idea of expanding economies of regular people. And it has nothing, really, to do with Dems and Reps; both parties propose impossible dreams of little utility.
There is simply no rational basis to be considering a manned mission to a NEO at this time.
John, did we read the same article? Why are you fixating on some "'lander?" I saw no talk of a lander. You seem to be transmogrifying the SEV, which is mostly just a large truss with solar panels, radiators and some outsized station keeping thrusters into an asteroid lander. Then you start wildly postulating super-expensive sounding capabilities for your fantasy of the SEV "lander" like allowing "astros" to touch the asteroid without a spacesuit on. Where is this coming from?
It is not a lander, and most all of its components are just versions of hardware currently in use. Your point about it being just as hard/expensive to develop as a lunar lander is hard to understand.
And don't get me started with your level playing field logic: You claim an equal budget comparison, but your NEA mission only manages to go somewhere with a negligible gravity well and brings back some samples, while the moon mission starts building a city on the moon and some how you think these things will cost the same?
-
The very first picture in Chris' article
Also have a gander at the "500 Day Configuration" picture.
Then there's the SEV picture.
I'd advise to be careful on the images. I was using slides from a number of presentations (simply because there isn't a set concept, so it's good to show the various ideas on the table). The Con Ops is heavy on text, as opposed to graphics.
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
Yes; partly because of budget. To speed up the launch rate, NASA would need a higher Exploration budget and perhaps a third launchpad too. Getting 39A and B ready for the next launches takes time and money. With a Pad 39C the pressure would be off somewhat to refurbish A & B in time for their next launches.
I know that before Apollo and Apollo Applications were cancelled there were plans pencilled in to build 39C. In fact, somewhere here on Nasaspaceflight.com someone posted a picture of the plans. But to build 39C now would probably be at least a $5 billion dollar project. But what an asset it would be for a Heavy Exploration program!!
With those three pads in operation plus 2x pads capable of launching Falcon Heavies I could imagine a big 'BEO' mission being assembled out of a relatively quick 'salvo' campaign of launches. But just a small, dark suspicion of mine: is the SLS launch rate being made to look as unattractive as possible? After all - with 39A & B, NASA used to be able to get up to six or seven Shuttle missions aloft per year. Assuming that launch rate would be stifled or halved by a low budget, would that not still mean that three SLS could be sent aloft in one year? Or is the budgetary situation and my naivety worse than I thought?
If such a high launch rate could miraculously be afforded someday, rather than $5B on Pad 39C, since AV will be man rated for CCDev by such time, why not spend only a fraction of that $5B to transition to a 1.5 launch architecture by qualifying AVH or AVP2? SLS could become cargo only and Orion would go to EOR via Atlas just prior to deep space departure. The rest of the deep space hardware needs to be assembled in LEO prior to crew arrival anyway. Sending the crewed Orion on SLS at the end of the rendezvous mainfest is an overuse of launch capacity. Why use a full SLS Block II to send up the crewed Orion at the end of assembly? The Atlas is all that's needed to get them there. Building a new pad for AVH and AVP2 would be cheaper than 39C and the new Atlas pad could be used for launches other than Orion as well.
-
EDIT: The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment - a variation of 'clean-pad' - so it could be made to allow 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
-
The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained.
-
The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained.
Which I definitely did point out in my earlier post.
-
The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained.
Which I definitely did point out in my earlier post.
BTW, I do think there are other, more effective ways to increase the flight rate than building another pad.
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
-
Web page on NEO 1999AO10
http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2011/knarr/
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
A launch pad 39C would be but one way to speed up the launch rate - but by NO means the best or only way. Speedy pad refurbishment and the budget and personnel to accomplish it may be the best way, I suppose. Just look at the quick turn-around between the launches of Gemini 7 & 6 for an example. Though the degree of difficulty with a booster the size of SLS vs a Titan II is a lot different. I was only thinking of Mars mission windows when the need to launch multiple payloads for linkup is more critical, hence my 'launch in salvoes' comment.
And as for the 'Moon vs NEA' excitement level: Man on the Moon has almost mythic status, whereas visiting one NEA, then another is going to cause more than one smart-alec to say; "Hey; didn't Bruce Willis do that in some old movie?"
The Moon is a world, a very small asteroid is not. But it would be interesting. Also, developing even a simple 2-man lunar Lander is going to be - at least - a $10 Billion dollar project. Far less than that could be done developing the MPLM-based Hab, an airlock module and a SEV-based 'asteroid lander'.
-
Why do the need so much time between launches for NEO missions? ( excluding money )
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
I quite agree.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
Is that a fair comparison? Should be lunar sortie missions, because if you compare a NEA mission to a lunar base (which is what I think several people would be excited about), you're comparing something with very different levels of funding.
-
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
Suggestion for Poll, in HLV section as this thread is in.
) Start with NEO then moon or Mars
) Moon first with a NEA mission mixed in with lunar launches then Mars
) Straight to Mars
) Moon then Mars
) EML1/2 station then NEA followed by moon or Mars
) EML1/2 station then Mars
) EML1/2 station then Moon with NEA mixed in then Mars
-
... I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
Good idea. Asteroids don't do it for me. The only reasonable thing I can think of is a 2029 rendezvous, or a bit earlier, with Apophis to take samples, mass and density readings, measurements, and place a couple of transponders. This would give an opportunity to track and carefully calculate the trajectory of the thing as well as determine its impact potential and how best to tractor it if necessary prior to 2036. That would be a reasonable mission with an understandable purpose. Even if we already know there will be no 2036 impact, the data should give us valuable information in preparing for something more serious in the future. On an opinion survey, I would list an Apophis survey mission separately from other NEA missions.
Luna? Been there, done that. (We now commonly talk about so many different moons in this solar system that often when I hear the word moon, I think to myself, Which one? Considering the nature of this site, I would humbly suggest it's time to start calling Earth's single moon by the proper noun which is its actual specific name.)
A rendezvous with Phobos makes the most sense. No need for a lander, transportation vehicles, etc. Most people don't have an idea of what Phobos is, but they do recognize the name Mars and they understand "one of Mars' moons". We could even do Phobos before we do Apophis. From a psychological point of view, this would represent a big leap forward to the general public. Technologically, it represents perhaps 50% of the necessary work and cost towards a manned Mars landing. To most of the general public, it would say that we have made it 99.999% (in physical proximity) of the way to Mars on a stable and reasonable (we hope) budget. To them, it would rank as another giant leap for mankind. That in turn would generate greater support for funds to start building the lander.
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
Right. The restricting factor, as mentioned earlier, is funding. Current plans seem to only call for development of one pad and one launch platform (and only one VAB cell) for SLS. LC 39A is going to be reallocated to other purposes, or sit unused.
But one pad and one platform is more than enough, because NASA can't afford to build, test, stack, and fly more than one SLS at a time. As things stand now, the single launch platform and launch pad will sit empty for months, and maybe even years, at a time.
- Ed Kyle
-
... I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
Good idea. Asteroids don't do it for me. The only reasonable thing I can think of is a 2029 rendezvous, or a bit earlier, with Apophis to take samples, density readings, measurements, and place a couple of transponders. This would give an opportunity to track and carefully calculate the trajectory of the thing as well as determine its impact potential and how best to tractor it if necessary prior to 2036. That would be a reasonable mission with an understandable purpose. On an opinion survey, I would list an Apophis survey mission separately from other NEA missions.
Luna? Been there, done that. (We now commonly talk about so many different moons in this solar system that often when I hear the word moon, I think to myself, Which one? Considering the nature of this site, I would humbly suggest it's time to start calling Earth's single moon by the proper noun which is its actual specific name.)
A rendezvous with Phobos makes the most sense. No need for a lander, transportation vehicles, etc. Most people don't have an idea of what Phobos is, but they do recognize the name Mars and they understand "one of Mars' moons". We could even do Phobos before we do Apophis. From a psychological point of view, this would represent a big leap forward to the general public. Technologically, it represents perhaps 50% of the necessary work and cost towards a manned Mars landing. To most of the general public, it would say that we have made it 99.999% (in physical proximity) of the way to Mars on a stable and reasonable (we hope) budget. To them, it would rank as another giant leap for mankind.
That would be like Apollo 10, so close but no landing!
It would be like taking the kids from New York to Fl. Disney World parking lot, not going in and then returning home!
NEA for one of the missions would be shorter time in space, better for the crew and less risk. ( I'd rather go to mars )
If we are to go to Mars then land, set up outpost and from there explore by means of the SEV's.
-
If we don't have a lander, we could still do several things with a Mars orbital mission:
1) Do an EVA to the surface of Phobos or Deimos, possibly using a tether or just an MMU (or both), and possibly using an SEV.
2) Remotely monitor and deploy base elements on Mars for the later surface mission.
3) Low-latency remote control of rovers (i.e. telepresence) on Mars or possibly also the moons of Mars.
4) If it's an Opposition-class (i.e. short-stay, total mission time 400-600 days) Mars mission (which makes a flyby of Venus), you could even do remote, low-latency operation of a telepresence rover on Venus's for an hour or two or until it dies of heat, kind of a unique opportunity that wouldn't really otherwise be possible (and would probably not be worth doing by itself).
It is an Apollo 8 or Apollo 10. Big deal. We did Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 for a reason, you know!
-
That would be like Apollo 10, so close but no landing!
It would be like taking the kids from New York to Fl. Disney World parking lot, not going in and then returning home!
NEA for one of the missions would be shorter time in space, better for the crew and less risk. ( I'd rather go to mars )
If we are to go to Mars then land, set up outpost and from there explore by means of the SEV's.
You're assuming we would have the money, correct landing protocol, lander design, and other wherewithal to build the lander, SEVs etc. by then. I fully believe that will not be the case. Mars is a difficult place to land-enough atmosphere to melt your spacecraft, too little to land by parachute. More atmosphere or less atmosphere would be better; Mars has just enough to be quite difficult. Apollo 10 took a lander (with an ascent module only partially fueled). There would be no lander; this would be an Apollo 8. Going to Phobos would be the teaser you describe. It would generate the enthusiasm to support appropriation of funding to build the lander, SEVs, etc. The general public does not think the way all of us here do; they just don't use the logic we do. They need something that has sensible value (studying Apophis to make sure it doesn't obliterate us all) or something that wows them (astronauts saluting the stars and stripes on another world, mind boggling Hubble photos). We have to think like them and consider what's going to motivate them to be willing to accept appropriations of funds. This mission is the psychological teaser the public needs.
-
That would be like Apollo 10, so close but no landing!
It would be like taking the kids from New York to Fl. Disney World parking lot, not going in and then returning home!
NEA for one of the missions would be shorter time in space, better for the crew and less risk. ( I'd rather go to mars )
If we are to go to Mars then land, set up outpost and from there explore by means of the SEV's.
You're assuming we would have the money, correct landing protocol, lander design, and other wherewithal to build the lander, SEVs etc. by then. I fully believe that will not be the case. Apollo 10 took a lander (with an ascent module only partially fueled). There would be no lander; this would be an Apollo 8. Going to Phobos would be the teaser you describe. It would generate the enthusiasm to support appropriation of funding to build the lander, SEVs, etc. This mission is the psychological teaser the public needs.
NEA would do the same with less risk ( shorter time ). Public either wants Mars or Not.
As you know the thing with Mars is all the equipment that is needed to send before the crew arrives.
Is there any interest for a joint NEA mission from other parties?
-
NEA would do the same with less risk ( shorter time ). Public either wants Mars or Not.
Respectfully, I think that is totally wrong. That's the way space professionals think, not the way the public thinks. Getting so close and knowing NASA needs more money to land will give them the enthusiasm to spend that extra money.
As you know the thing with Mars is all the equipment that is needed to send before the crew arrives.
Exactly my point, you don't have to pay for and send as much of that stuff for a Phobos mission coupled with a few days in Mars orbit. Get out, do an EVA, take pics of astronauts floating and Mars oh so close in the background. Don't you see, it's like showing a teenager Playboy pictures; it builds desire and makes him want to spend the money. We have to use psychology to make the public want us doing things they like out there.
We have to stop thinking like Sheldon Cooper and think like Penny. The Sheldons of the country are smarter, but the Pennys of the country have the purse strings. (Pun not intended, but it is appropo!)
-
Photo Shop it then.
Air Force One did a flyby in New York a few years back for a photo Op, reported on FOX news ( scared some people as 9/11 was still in there memory ). They said they should of use Photo Shop instead and saved the money.
All your sending back is a photo anyway.
The remote control set up of a base I do not believe is necessary but can be done when crew is almost to Mars orbit and when in orbit.
2030+ is a long way off to get all the pieces in place. Better if we partner up with others for all four types of missions EML1/2 station, NEA, moon, Mars.
Hopefully we will have a poll by Sunday afternoon U.S. time.
-
Photo Shop it then.
O.K. sarcasm is not helping the conversation. For me to have to explain a real picture represents a real event, and that the public knows if we really have been there to take the picture is nuts. I know you are not that obtuse. If you want to have a serious discussion, let's please do so. Actually going and getting close will whet the public's appetite. Fake pictures will not.
-
A mission to Phobos, departing from EML-2. Whilst there build the Mars spacestation at the Mars-Phobos Lagrange point 1. Go for a space walk and gather samples from the surface of Phobos.
Later missions can dock with the spacestation and bring the Mars lander.
-
TomH nailed it with the Playboy analogy. Getting to Mars orbit is like getting the Great White Fleet halfway around the world. The money will follow to get you to the surface.
-
I just had a read of Chris' latest article...
John, did we read the same article?
Holy reading comprehension skills, Batman!
[The SEV] is probably the "lander" that is thought to be "cheaper"
I saw no talk of a lander.
That's correct, the article does not talk of a NEO lander. "In the continual debate on this forum", the idea of a lunar lander is compared to a roughly equivalent NEO lander, with the former being characterized as too expensive, due to its need to escape Luna's gravity well. The roughly equivalent NEO lander, won't have this showstopping requirement. Left unsaid in the "continual debate", of which this thread is a part, is a comparison of the two missions and their total costs and values. Left unsaid in your response is any opinion of yours regarding this comparison, leaving me to believe that you are in favor of "Asteroid Next" missions (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/asteroid-missions-proving-grounds-future-crewed-mars-missions/). These missions should not be a goal of NASA's at all at this time, in my opinion.
From the article, I took this picture (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Z514.jpg) to be the SEV; the picture was uncaptioned, and I took the adjacent text to refer to it. So I can certainly be accused of web laziness regarding my research of that picture.
Such a craft would probably offer a shirtsleeve environment for the astros to pick at the rock...
Then you start wildly postulating super-expensive sounding capabilities for your fantasy of the SEV "lander" like allowing "astros" to touch the asteroid without a spacesuit on.
(This [the SEV] is a) modular vehicle that combines a pressurized cabin and crew support equipment, a propulsion/consumables unit, and robotic support packages...
I hope I'm not "wildly postulating" that a "pressurized cabin" would allow the astros to work in a "shirtsleeve environment". I would also hope they would keep the airlock closed while they peck around on the rock, tho. That way, they wouldn't have to keep their space suits on while in the pressurized cabin. But hey. In addition, you are certainly free to believe that the article's postulated capabilities of the spacecraft are not "super-expensive sounding capabilities". And while I am totally in favor of an SEV in principle, I am sure that it will be an expensive vehicle to develop.
It is not a lander, and most all of its components are just versions of hardware currently in use. Your point about it being just as hard/expensive to develop as a lunar lander is hard to understand.
That "most of" the SEV's components are "currently in use" is an assertion that I would not make, and that you cannot defend.
But John's proposing a lunar base for four astros, what about all that infrastructure?
And don't get me started with your level playing field logic: You claim an equal budget comparison, but your NEA mission only manages to go somewhere with a negligible gravity well and brings back some samples, while the moon mission starts building a city on the moon and some how you think these things will cost the same?
The ISS has six folks on board, so I suppose that "city" is 50% larger than the uhhh, "city", I suggest. "A level playing field would suggest trading the two missions with the same budget and the same duration: 500 days, and put a valuation on..." the results from either mission. And the same mass, I forgot to add. True, I make light of the expected return from a NEO mission, but I do present a short list of their probable accomplishments, and compare that list with the probable accomplishments of four astros on the Moon. There is no official side by side comparison of the two possible missions that I describe.
******************
one of the things that is continually missed in the ongoing debate about the utility of a NEO mission is the mission duration. Here, the astros would spend a week at the NEO and 243 days in transit, running the treadmill and playing video games. For a lunar mission, they'd spend a week in transit and 243 days on the surface, doing field work. Dollar for dollar, you're going to get more work on Luna. And more value.
-
That would be like Apollo 10, so close but no landing!
It would be like taking the kids from New York to Fl. Disney World parking lot, not going in and then returning home!
NEA for one of the missions would be shorter time in space, better for the crew and less risk. ( I'd rather go to mars )
If we are to go to Mars then land, set up outpost and from there explore by means of the SEV's.
You're assuming we would have the money, correct landing protocol, lander design, and other wherewithal to build the lander, SEVs etc. by then. I fully believe that will not be the case. Mars is a difficult place to land-enough atmosphere to melt your spacecraft, too little to land by parachute. More atmosphere or less atmosphere would be better; Mars has just enough to be quite difficult.....
This is very much untrue! You could do a fully propulsive landing on Mars and not have to worry about the heatshield, but it'd be a lot heavier. The atmosphere helps immensely so you don't have to do a fully propulsive landing. This is why we've been landing at low-altitude sites on Mars, because it's easier.
-
Photo Shop it then.
O.K. sarcasm is not helping the conversation. For me to have to explain a real picture represents a real event, and that the public knows if we really have been there to take the picture is nuts. I know you are not that obtuse. If you want to have a serious discussion, let's please do so. Actually going and getting close will whet the public's appetite. Fake pictures will not.
Apollo was canceled before first moon landing. After Apollo 11 with live video and still pictures after that. So Congress did not fund any more moon landings to take place after Apollo 17.
They have been talking ever since about returning to the moon and going to Mars. Spending a lot of money and then canceling project after project.
It's not just about getting the public excited about Mars. it is about seeing a project through, on time, and on budget. Congress is the one holding the purse, so they are the one's we need to convince Mars, moon, EML1/2 station, and or NEO is worth the money spent. It was their speaks that got them their votes not the projects being seen through.
What we need are short term goals 4 to 8 years from start to finish. That way they are most likely not going to get canceled. Our goal for now should be the EML1/2 station then followed by moon landing(s) ( only would need to add the lander to the SLS and Orion with the EML1/2 station ). Then when the window is open for the NEA that is chosen then we can go there for a side mission. After that would be around 2030 for Mars. There would need to be more EML1/2, lunar and or NEO missions before Mars to justify all the expense in the mean time.
So NEA or NEO is an OK side mission. Test how crew handles extreme low gravity, what the object is made of, how to orbit , rendezvous. Test SEP system outside LEO and EML1/2 for short runs before Mars. Crew might be able to take pictures of the Sun and or Earth in the back ground at the NEA, on the way to or an the way back from the NEA with an EVA.
As far as Photo Shop, for vacation spots it is best to have real pictures and videos. But for places that have not been visited to sell the idea to go to them is best left up to artist pictures of what they believe it would look like. It would cost to much just to go to Mars orbit and go home. Plus it would then take to much time to fund a lander and new mission before any of the excitement wears out before the new mission could be launched.
And as we all know in the coming years these project will need more money than what they have now. Focus on LEO crew taxi and Orion test flights. Then around 2015 they should start to build the EML1/2 station so we could start having mission to and from there by 2020 a year after Orion's second SLS test flight. That could mean having extra SLS block 1 or having block 1A ready. SEV could be tested at ISS and then EML1/2 station to follow an NEO mission when the window opens up.
-
There's no such thing as extreme low gravity. It's either low or it's not.
As far as long term goes, Russian cosmonauts have been in zero-g for more than a year at a time. They were weak when they returned to earth but otherwise healthy. They recovered their strength as they re-acclimated to full-g.
-
There's no such thing as extreme low gravity. It's either low or it's not.
FWIW, I've always liked the phrase "theoretical gravity". That is defined (in my head at least) as gravity that exists according to any decent mathematician but cannot be detected by a person or any but the most sensitive instruments over any but very long time-scales.
Most NEAs are like that: Physics demands that they must have some gravity but, in practice, you aren't going to detect it very easily.
-
There's no such thing as extreme low gravity. It's either low or it's not.
As far as long term goes, Russian cosmonauts have been in zero-g for more than a year at a time. They were weak when they returned to earth but otherwise healthy. They recovered their strength as they re-acclimated to full-g.
Gravity , a lot less than the moon.
Quote: Test how crew handles extreme low gravity
Was referring to how they would move around on the NEA, take sample, ect. Was not referring to there healthy from low gravity. With the less than a year missions to NEO I didn't think that was a problem.
But that is a good point to bring up at least for the time to get to Mars and how crew would handle the gravity there after traveling to get there. So after the crew returns from a NEO to the EML1/2 station them they could land on the moon to see how they handle a lower gravity than Earth after being in micro gravity.
-
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
Suggestion for Poll, in HLV section as this thread is in.
) Start with NEO then moon or Mars
) Moon first with a NEA mission mixed in with lunar launches then Mars
) Straight to Mars
) Moon then Mars
) EML1/2 station then NEA followed by moon or Mars
) EML1/2 station then Mars
) EML1/2 station then Moon with NEA mixed in then Mars
I think that such a poll would be very interesting to watch although I think a 'one post only' rule would be needed to stop it degenerating into a food fight. Destination is a very senitive topic on this board.
Personally, my vote is for a hybrid of the last two options - the LaGrange station is a nice, easy short-term BEO objective - achievable using the Block-I SLS and supportable by extant and near-term available commercial launchers. Lunar surface is a logical next step from that, including the possibility of commercial tanking of lander propellent to the gateway station.
I'm on the record as being an NEA sceptic. If one becomes available for crewed exploration, then fine but it shouldn't be a deal-killer if one doesn't turn up. There should be an alternate route to LMO that doesn't include an NEA and that alternate route should be 'Plan A', with the NEA mission being inserted as and when a viable target object is identified.
[edit]
Tidied up argument
-
A SEP stack capable of pushing the exploration gateway to a Phobos/Deimos mission is capable of several NEA targets. And if you can go to Phobos/Deimos, you can go to the surface of Mars just by adding a lander. Thus a NEA mission is a great way to get additional use out of the beginnings of a Mars architecture. Like an actually productive version of Apollo 8.
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
I quite agree.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
Is that a fair comparison? Should be lunar sortie missions, because if you compare a NEA mission to a lunar base (which is what I think several people would be excited about), you're comparing something with very different levels of funding.
Yeah, that poll question and options will require some thought for that very reason. I'll sleep on it! ;D
-
....if you can go to Phobos/Deimos, you can go to the surface of Mars just by adding a lander.
It sounds like you are suggesting high V transport, short stay sortie, no radiation shielding for the surface, no transportation vehicles? Basically Apollo 11: land, get out, put up a flag, take a walk, set up some experiments, get in, take a nap, leave. Otherwise, there's a whole lot more to it than just adding a lander. You'd be talking several extremely large landers all having to land in the same place. Landing on Mars is not like landing on Luna. I'm just hoping Curiosity makes it down at this point. We should learn a lot from that descent.
Thus a NEA mission is a great way to get additional use out of the beginnings of a Mars architecture. Like an actually productive version of Apollo 8.
A survey of Phobos with sample returns would be a huge boon to the study of Mars geology. You'd learn things about early Mars that you couldn't from Mars sample returns.
-
....if you can go to Phobos/Deimos, you can go to the surface of Mars just by adding a lander.
It sounds like you are suggesting high V transport, short stay sortie, no radiation shielding for the surface, no transportation vehicles? Basically Apollo 11: land, get out, put up a flag, take a walk, set up some experiments, get in, take a nap, leave. Otherwise, there's a whole lot more to it than just adding a lander....
Quite right, but it may be wise for the first mission to be a short-stay (though I usually argue for long-stay). The next could be long-stay, but all the surface components beyond the basic lander would be pre-placed and pre-deployed.
There's some wisdom in having a gradual envelope expansion of human habitation in space. If long-stay weren't so much more advantageous from a delta-v standpoint, it'd be pretty obvious that the first one should be a 30-day stay, not a ~year stay.
We had an Apollo 11 which stayed a very short time before leaving, later we had the "J-missions" starting with Apollo 15 which had significantly longer stays, a lunar rover, etc. Gradual envelope expansion makes sense, usually.
Because of the delta-v difference, it's a really tough call.
-
....if you can go to Phobos/Deimos, you can go to the surface of Mars just by adding a lander.
It sounds like you are suggesting high V transport, short stay sortie, no radiation shielding for the surface, no transportation vehicles? Basically Apollo 11: land, get out, put up a flag, take a walk, set up some experiments, get in, take a nap, leave. Otherwise, there's a whole lot more to it than just adding a lander....
Quite right, but it may be wise for the first mission to be a short-stay (though I usually argue for long-stay). The next could be long-stay, but all the surface components beyond the basic lander would be pre-placed and pre-deployed.
There's some wisdom in having a gradual envelope expansion of human habitation in space. If long-stay weren't so much more advantageous from a delta-v standpoint, it'd be pretty obvious that the first one should be a 30-day stay, not a ~year stay.
We had an Apollo 11 which stayed a very short time before leaving, later we had the "J-missions" starting with Apollo 15 which had significantly longer stays, a lunar rover, etc. Gradual envelope expansion makes sense, usually.
Because of the delta-v difference, it's a really tough call.
There is a good reason to have a long stay on the moon first. To see if we can. If we can stay for a long time ( 3 years ) then we would have a good bet that we could stay on Mars for the time until the return window opened up for that mission.
We would need to send at least enough equipment for two outposts ( small base, 3 pieces ) stocked with supplies and three SEV's per outpost for crew safety and mission success.
The possible NEA mission(s) with the lunar missions should give us all the training we need for Mars.
With the right planning the flight rates can be there for SLS and the support launchers ( U.S. and others ) to support these missions. Then we can have Mars mission(s) once we have gathered enough training and info from the other two and still have crew on the moon.
-
Hmmm... reading this article sparked a thought, perhaps something that would warrant its own conversation, perhaps not.
One of the books in my personal library is John S. Lewis' 'Mining the Sky'. In it, he devotes a chapter to the concept of a 'Cycler' asteroid/ship that moves between Earth and Mars orbit carrying colonists.
The thought that popped into my mind was a hybrid concept, namely identifying NEA's that are already on such trajectories and then having the Mars exploration ships shadow them on the trips out and back from Mars.
Why? I can think of two solid reasons.
1) Radiation shielding. In the event of a solar flare, the ship could move into the shadow of the asteroid and use its mass to block the worst radiation effects.
2) Something to do while in transit. The crew would have the ability to explore and fully catalog the asteroid while in transit.
Complications?
1) Complexity of mission design requiring rendezvous with two different asteroids (one going, one coming).
2) Extra resources required for a potentially longer transit and wait for return ride.
Thoughts?
-
The biggest issue with cyclers is the need for much greater delta-v to get to and from them.
Radiation from solar flares is actually reasonably easy to engineer away. A few inches of water can eliminate the vast majority of the acute risk. GCRs are another story, though they do not have an acute risk associated with them.
-
The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained.
It's questionable that NASA will even use the two pads they already have at this point. So I woudln't worry about 39C for awhile (ever).
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
*snip*
And as for the 'Moon vs NEA' excitement level: Man on the Moon has almost mythic status, whereas visiting one NEA, then another is going to cause more than one smart-alec to say; "Hey; didn't Bruce Willis do that in some old movie?"
The Moon is a world, a very small asteroid is not. But it would be interesting. Also, developing even a simple 2-man lunar Lander is going to be - at least - a $10 Billion dollar project. Far less than that could be done developing the MPLM-based Hab, an airlock module and a SEV-based 'asteroid lander'.
X2!
I whole heartedly agree.
I do see the scientific merits of a NEO. But I don’t see much in the way of public interest for a flagship class NASA HSF mission, considering the costs and technical challenges of such a mission. I’d like to see NASA do one some time, but I think a Moon landing, along with some extended duration missions/outpost, etc there would be many times more interesting to the public than a NEO. The Moon is the largest and most obvious “NEO” there is, and we barely scratched the surface. As much as I love Buzz Aldrin, I couldn’t disagree with him more when he endorsed the Flexible Path saying, “We’ve already been to the Moon. Been there done that” (paraphrasing). Other Apollo astronauts have a drastically different view about returning to the moon. It –almost- seems like Buzz doesn’t want his almost mythic status as the 2nd man to walk on the moon, and one of only 12 to every do so, to be marginalized by a whole bunch of new astronauts doing it. I am probably misreading that about him, but I can’t see why he’d be so dismissive about returning to the moon after we’d done so little there, so long ago. Fellow Moon walkers Armstrong, Young and Cernan have strongly endorsed going back first.
I think there’s much more to be learned about going to Mars by going to the Moon first, than there is about going to a NEO first, IMO.
Once we’ve gotten back on the Moon, and are habitating there, and are developing technologies to that effect, then we could design a space hab, based on whatever hab tech we’d developed for the moon. Then we can wait for a really choice NEO that’s interesting, hopefully large, and in an orbit that doesn’t take extraordinarily long to get to and back from.
I don’t know, just seems like we are mission the 800 lb gorilla in the room by talking about a NEO as the initial focus, rather than the Moon. And the Moon seems like it would be far more interesting to explore than a NEO. At least at first.
What I think might be interesting for a lunar program, is an SEV derived crew lander. That could either be a smaller vertical lander with an SEV based Ascent Module if two stage, or SEV based crew cabin if single stage. If the lander is something like an ACES horizontal lander, it could have and SEV based reusable AM or cockpit. So even the SEV concept could be refined and then some version of the SEV AM could be the NEO explorer vehicle.
-
There's no such thing as extreme low gravity. It's either low or it's not.
As far as long term goes, Russian cosmonauts have been in zero-g for more than a year at a time. They were weak when they returned to earth but otherwise healthy. They recovered their strength as they re-acclimated to full-g.
WEll, we can easily test prolong exposure to zero-g on the ISS. We can put a guy up there for ever a year if we want. and remove him if there's any health problems while he's there. Easy enough.
What we can't test out is prolonged exposure to "low" gravity, such as the Moon's, Mars, or some sort of artificial gravity during a long term mission. We don't know if the body's reaction to gravities bewteen zero and 1g is linear, or something else. It could be that exposure to 1/6 gravity woudl allow a person to greatly reduce their muscle and bone loss, especially if they where body weights to make themselvses heavier. (something that can't be done is zero-g, no matter your mass, if there's no graivty, there is no resistance on the body). Or 1/6 gravity might simply be a little less bone and muscle loss than zero-g. 1/2 gravity being 1/2 muscle and bone loss, etc.
WE don't know, but an outpost of some kind on the Moon where we could put astronauts for 6 months or more at a time, could tell us some of that. A VERY useful bit of info for Mars missions, or other long duration mission if there's any potential for considering generating artificial gravity.
-
There's no such thing as extreme low gravity. It's either low or it's not.
As far as long term goes, Russian cosmonauts have been in zero-g for more than a year at a time. They were weak when they returned to earth but otherwise healthy. They recovered their strength as they re-acclimated to full-g.
WEll, we can easily test prolong exposure to zero-g on the ISS. We can put a guy up there for ever a year if we want. and remove him if there's any health problems while he's there. Easy enough.
What we can't test out is prolonged exposure to "low" gravity, such as the Moon's, Mars, or some sort of artificial gravity during a long term mission. We don't know if the body's reaction to gravities bewteen zero and 1g is linear, or something else. It could be that exposure to 1/6 gravity woudl allow a person to greatly reduce their muscle and bone loss, especially if they where body weights to make themselvses heavier. (something that can't be done is zero-g, no matter your mass, if there's no graivty, there is no resistance on the body). Or 1/6 gravity might simply be a little less bone and muscle loss than zero-g. 1/2 gravity being 1/2 muscle and bone loss, etc.
WE don't know, but an outpost of some kind on the Moon where we could put astronauts for 6 months or more at a time, could tell us some of that. A VERY useful bit of info for Mars missions, or other long duration mission if there's any potential for considering generating artificial gravity.
And such a Moon base operated for ten years may very well cost the same as the first Mars mission.
-
Mars is a world, the Moon is a world, NEA's are just a "rock in space". Sorry, it just does not rate like a Flagship mission as a destination... Further, to add that we "explored" the Moon already, sorry again, we just "visited" and that was over 40 years ago...
-
Mars is a world, the Moon is a world, NEA's are just a "rock in space". Sorry, it just does not rate like a Flagship mission as a destination... Further, to add that we "explored" the Moon already, sorry again, we just "visited" and that was over 40 years ago...
The Moon is kind of just a rock in space, too. No atmosphere to speak of, about as unlikely as the asteroids to be a home to a self-sufficient colony.
And what the heck are you apologizing in a condescending way for?
The road to developing an architecture capable of a manned mission to Mars goes past the NEAs. They are so shallow of gravity wells that you could just do an EVA to their surface (with the MTV station-keeping nearby), without having to build a lander or otherwise modify your Mars Transfer Vehicle. They present an existential threat to humanity, thus studying them is quite valuable, as is developing the infrastructure and experience to put a very large payload in their vicinity (i.e. the solar-electric propulsion unit, which is just as useful for a Mars mission).
Don't get me wrong, Moon missions would also be cool, but don't dismiss a valuable and unique mission just because you like the Moon so much.
-
Mars is a world, the Moon is a world, NEA's are just a "rock in space". Sorry, it just does not rate like a Flagship mission as a destination... Further, to add that we "explored" the Moon already, sorry again, we just "visited" and that was over 40 years ago...
The Moon is kind of just a rock in space, too. No atmosphere to speak of, about as unlikely as the asteroids to be a home to a self-sufficient colony.
And what the heck are you apologizing in a condescending way for?
The road to developing an architecture capable of a manned mission to Mars goes past the NEAs. They are so shallow of gravity wells that you could just do an EVA to their surface (with the MTV station-keeping nearby), without having to build a lander or otherwise modify your Mars Transfer Vehicle. They present an existential threat to humanity, thus studying them is quite valuable, as is developing the infrastructure and experience to put a very large payload in their vicinity (i.e. the solar-electric propulsion unit, which is just as useful for a Mars mission).
Don't get me wrong, Moon missions would also be cool, but don't dismiss a valuable and unique mission just because you like the Moon so much.
Hey Robot,
No condescension meant to anyone in particular here on this forum. If any disdain on my behalf is directed to the authors of the so-called roadmap and trying to sell it to the populace and congress.
What came to mind is this…
~“we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”
John F. Kennedy
~“Mars is hard…”
Charlie Bolden
I really don’t get this malaise and fear of doing things that are hard
anymore…
Regards
Robert
P.S. I’ll let Warren lecture you again on the Moon thing… ::)
-
Mars is hard, which is why we're doing it! That's the whole reason to do these NEA missions, because they provide a useful mission to do that uses the hardware for a Mars mission to do an intermediate goal while we develop and shake-down the rest of the architecture. It's like Gemini or the early Apollo missions (before Apollo 11), except with better scientific return.
-
Mars is hard, which is why we're doing it! That's the whole reason to do these NEA missions, because they provide a useful mission to do that uses the hardware for a Mars mission to do an intermediate goal while we develop and shake-down the rest of the architecture. It's like Gemini or the early Apollo missions (before Apollo 11), except with better scientific return.
Yes, I get that. But with Gemini we had a hard target… the Moon. The way they have been selling this that we are going to an asteroid and yes some day after that we’ll go to Mars… someday…
If we go to Phobos, for example, the public is going to ask why we didn’t land on Mars instead. We can’t use “Mars is hard” and expect them to understand and buy it. They would see it as going on a road trip across country to see the Empire State Building in NYC and not going up to the top when you got there.
-
WE don't know, but an outpost of some kind on the Moon where we could put astronauts for 6 months or more at a time, could tell us some of that. A VERY useful bit of info for Mars missions, or other long duration mission if there's any potential for considering generating artificial gravity.
And such a Moon base operated for ten years may very well cost the same as the first Mars mission.
After such an expensive, but sustained campaign on the Moon, surely this would provide experience to reduce the costof the subsequent Mars mission?
cheers, Martin
-
Mars is hard, which is why we're doing it! That's the whole reason to do these NEA missions, because they provide a useful mission to do that uses the hardware for a Mars mission to do an intermediate goal while we develop and shake-down the rest of the architecture. It's like Gemini or the early Apollo missions (before Apollo 11), except with better scientific return.
Yes, I get that. But with Gemini we had a hard target… the Moon. The way they have been selling this that we are going to an asteroid and yes some day after that we’ll go to Mars… someday…
If we go to Phobos, for example, the public is going to ask why we didn’t land on Mars instead. We can’t use “Mars is hard” and expect them to understand and buy it. They would see it as going on a road trip across country to see the Empire State Building in NYC and not going up to the top when you got there.
What? With these NEA missions, we have a target, too: Mars. When Obama announced the change of direction, he set the mission end-point and primary focus on Mars. The NEAs are interesting science mission targets in their own right (a significant improvement from Gemini), but it's critical we get deep space operating experience before going to Mars for hundreds and hundreds of days. How would the public respond if we just did a mission to an empty point in space instead?
And if we had enough funding to also have a reusable lunar lander, the same platform would work very good for supporting a extensive lunar campaign as well. The high-power SEP tug would be quite efficient at moving a lot of cargo from a lower Earth orbit to the vicinity of the Moon and back, with the rest of the exploration stack working as a gateway to dock the reusable lunar lander and support its refurbishment and checkout between missions along with supporting low-latency lunar telepresence.
-
If we go to Phobos, for example, the public is going to ask why we didn’t land on Mars instead. We can’t use “Mars is hard” and expect them to understand and buy it. They would see it as going on a road trip across country to see the Empire State Building in NYC and not going up to the top when you got there.
The answer is that NASA is building the spacestation on Phobos. There are plenty of towns where the railway stops outside the town and you get a taxi to your hotel. The large inter-planetary spacecraft are not designed to operate in an atmosphere and it would be too expensive to make them.
-
Mars is hard, which is why we're doing it! That's the whole reason to do these NEA missions, because they provide a useful mission to do that uses the hardware for a Mars mission to do an intermediate goal while we develop and shake-down the rest of the architecture. It's like Gemini or the early Apollo missions (before Apollo 11), except with better scientific return.
Yes, I get that. But with Gemini we had a hard target… the Moon. The way they have been selling this that we are going to an asteroid and yes some day after that we’ll go to Mars… someday…
If we go to Phobos, for example, the public is going to ask why we didn’t land on Mars instead. We can’t use “Mars is hard” and expect them to understand and buy it. They would see it as going on a road trip across country to see the Empire State Building in NYC and not going up to the top when you got there.
What? With these NEA missions, we have a target, too: Mars. When Obama announced the change of direction, he set the mission end-point and primary focus on Mars. The NEAs are interesting science mission targets in their own right (a significant improvement from Gemini), but it's critical we get deep space operating experience before going to Mars for hundreds and hundreds of days. How would the public respond if we just did a mission to an empty point in space instead?
And if we had enough funding to also have a reusable lunar lander, the same platform would work very good for supporting a extensive lunar campaign as well. The high-power SEP tug would be quite efficient at moving a lot of cargo from a lower Earth orbit to the vicinity of the Moon and back, with the rest of the exploration stack working as a gateway to dock the reusable lunar lander and support its refurbishment and checkout between missions along with supporting low-latency lunar telepresence.
Perhaps it is a nuance thing. We watched Charlie in testimony evolve his explanation of the proposal over the last couple of years to include Mars. If it is a Mars program, call it that and all other missions are less the focus. They way NASA has shown it is the other way around. He speaks more about capabilities than the target Mars. It is how I have perceived it and congress seems a little “fuzzy” on it too.
-
If we go to Phobos, for example, the public is going to ask why we didn’t land on Mars instead. We can’t use “Mars is hard” and expect them to understand and buy it. They would see it as going on a road trip across country to see the Empire State Building in NYC and not going up to the top when you got there.
The answer is that NASA is building the spacestation on Phobos. There are plenty of towns where the railway stops outside the town and you get a taxi to your hotel. The large inter-planetary spacecraft are not designed to operate in an atmosphere and it would be too expensive to make them.
That is nice and tidy. The public could understand that! :)
-
WE don't know, but an outpost of some kind on the Moon where we could put astronauts for 6 months or more at a time, could tell us some of that. A VERY useful bit of info for Mars missions, or other long duration mission if there's any potential for considering generating artificial gravity.
And such a Moon base operated for ten years may very well cost the same as the first Mars mission.
After such an expensive, but sustained campaign on the Moon, surely this would provide experience to reduce the costof the subsequent Mars mission?
cheers, Martin
It's a significantly different environment. A short-stay Mars mission would spend the vast majority of the time in transit or in orbit. The lander would have to be very different (Mars one would need to take aerodynamics into consideration, lunar one wouldn't), so unless you designed the lunar lander to Martian conditions from the get-go (a lot more expensive), you'd have to do the designing twice, and the lunar one would still be quite suboptimal.
The Moon would have to deal with a uniquely brutal sort of dust contamination for long-term missions (Apollo showed that short-term is not a huge issue, though annoying) whereas Mars's dust is pretty similar to certain terrestrial dust because both are formed primarily through wind processes.
ISRU would be vastly different between the two celestial bodies, with Mars ISRU being a lot easier since you can just suck in the Martian atmosphere and avoid having to do any regolith processing. And the Moon still doesn't give you experience with the sort of autonomy from ground control needed for a Mars mission (though I suppose that could be done artificially).
I don't see any areas which show that a decade of living on the Moon would give us a huge advantage in cost for a subsequent initial Mars mission beyond what can be achieved on a place like ISS for a lot less and a lot sooner. I suppose if you have a flexible enough Mars lander (i.e. not well optimized to Mars), you could test it on the Moon first, but that doesn't seem to justify a full lunar base with all the logistics and cost that'd entail.
Another issue is that a lunar base would have higher radiation doses than a Martian one (at lower altitudes), so astronauts on an EVA would always have to fear a big solar particle event, while astronauts on Mars would have the advantage of a significant atmosphere that filters out solar particle events to non-life-threatening levels. Lunar structures would also have to contend with micrometeorites, something that's not an issue on Mars because of Mars's atmosphere. Also, the Moon has much larger temperature swings because of its utter lack of atmosphere.
-
To me it seems pretty clear why thus far it's all been about the capabilities and not really the mission and that's about jobs and maintaining support in Congress.
That doesn't mean they don't have their own internal road maps (as we've seen from Chris) or a grand scheme for the entire program, but now is not the time to reveal that.
-
There's no such thing as extreme low gravity. It's either low or it's not.
As far as long term goes, Russian cosmonauts have been in zero-g for more than a year at a time. They were weak when they returned to earth but otherwise healthy. They recovered their strength as they re-acclimated to full-g.
WEll, we can easily test prolong exposure to zero-g on the ISS. We can put a guy up there for ever a year if we want. and remove him if there's any health problems while he's there. Easy enough.
What we can't test out is prolonged exposure to "low" gravity, such as the Moon's, Mars, or some sort of artificial gravity during a long term mission. We don't know if the body's reaction to gravities bewteen zero and 1g is linear, or something else. It could be that exposure to 1/6 gravity woudl allow a person to greatly reduce their muscle and bone loss, especially if they where body weights to make themselvses heavier. (something that can't be done is zero-g, no matter your mass, if there's no graivty, there is no resistance on the body). Or 1/6 gravity might simply be a little less bone and muscle loss than zero-g. 1/2 gravity being 1/2 muscle and bone loss, etc.
WE don't know, but an outpost of some kind on the Moon where we could put astronauts for 6 months or more at a time, could tell us some of that. A VERY useful bit of info for Mars missions, or other long duration mission if there's any potential for considering generating artificial gravity.
And such a Moon base operated for ten years may very well cost the same as the first Mars mission.
One year and three year time on the moon. Six man team , two return to Earth after one year the other four return after three years.
The one year team would help to know if a NEO or Mars mission could use a 1/6 artificial gravity instead of 1g. Should be easier to make a 1/6 artificial gravity instead of the 1g space craft. If the crew were better off with 1/6 instead of micro gravity then that could benefit transit times greater than six months ( stronger once back in gravity ), whether for NEA or Mars.. We want our crews to be strong and ready once they get to the destination(s).
Three year team to help determine if we can live of world, many factors involved.
NEO missions are more for beyond Mars missions than for Mars mission(s).
-
WE don't know, but an outpost of some kind on the Moon where we could put astronauts for 6 months or more at a time, could tell us some of that. A VERY useful bit of info for Mars missions, or other long duration mission if there's any potential for considering generating artificial gravity.
After such an expensive, but sustained campaign on the Moon, surely this would provide experience to reduce the cost of the subsequent Mars mission?
cheers, Martin
I agree with the above.
And such a Moon base operated for ten years may very well cost the same as the first Mars mission.
Bingo. We could have a vibrant, permanently manned Lunar station for the cost of a single, short-stay Mars mission.
It's a significantly different environment.
Not really.
A short-stay Mars mission would spend the vast majority of the time in transit or in orbit.
So why bother?
The lander would have to be very different (Mars one would need to take aerodynamics into consideration, lunar one wouldn't), so unless you designed the lunar lander to Martian conditions from the get-go (a lot more expensive), you'd have to do the designing twice, and the lunar one would still be quite suboptimal.
Not necessarily true: e.g., take the ULA DTAL Lunar lander: according to Zegler and Kutter, it's cigar shape is preadapted to endoatmospheric flights, and a Mars lander would be a straightforward upgrade of the ACES-41 version. Upgrading the lander would simply be a matter of stretching the tank to the ACES-71 version, and maybe swapping out the RL-10's with RL-60's. You'll want to make the skin out of a heat resistant material like Inconel nickel alloy. That's pretty much about it. A true 2 for 1.
The Moon would have to deal with a uniquely brutal sort of dust contamination for long-term missions (Apollo showed that short-term is not a huge issue, though annoying) whereas Mars's dust is pretty similar to certain terrestrial dust because both are formed primarily through wind processes.
Brutal? :D That's funny! At least Moon dust isn't poisoned with loads of perchlorates (forgot about Phoenix already, eh?). Yeah, you don't want to be breathing Moon dust, but believe me, you don't want to breath Mars dust either. There are Earth environments where the dust is as bad (mining, asbestos removal, air drilling). But they'll be wearing "spacesuits" with self-contained breathing, so it won't be a health issue. Setup a shower and vacuum system in the airlock. You'll have to do that at both Moon and Mars anyway. Another 2 for 1. Mars has no advantage in terms of nastiness of the dirt.
Indeed, I don't see how you'll be able grow crops in a greenhouse on Mars. I guess it'd have to be all hydroponic. On the Moon, however, once fertilized with compost, Lunar soil would make a great growing medium; it would be like a fresh volcanic soil on Earth. Plants will love it.
ISRU would be vastly different between the two celestial bodies, with Mars ISRU being a lot easier since you can just suck in the Martian atmosphere and avoid having to do any regolith processing.
Yeah, but you got to put in on the critical path. And so you better hope it works for two years before the humans land. And then you only get substandard Isp propellant for your efforts. Zubrin wanted to import LH2 from Earth....
On the other hand, if you did develop a Lunar ISRU capability, then transferring that technology to Mars would be a piece of cake. This is especially important if you want a permanently manned station on Mars. You'll want to be able mine your own water out of the Martian regolith. Developing this capability as part of the Lunar program means that the Mars program won't have to spend money developing this capability. Another 2 for 1.
And the Moon still doesn't give you experience with the sort of autonomy from ground control needed for a Mars mission (though I suppose that could be done artificially).
Yes.
I don't see any areas which show that a decade of living on the Moon would give us a huge advantage in cost for a subsequent initial Mars mission beyond what can be achieved on a place like ISS for a lot less and a lot sooner.
Let's see: (1) Lander; (2) dust mitigation; (3) regolith processing; (4) gravity in 1/6 g; (5) abundant Lunar propellant; (6) propellant depots; (7) reusable MTV's built out of leftover Lunar 3rd stages
I suppose if you have a flexible enough Mars lander (i.e. not well optimized to Mars), you could test it on the Moon first, but that doesn't seem to justify a full lunar base with all the logistics and cost that'd entail.
The main value of a Lunar station is that it keeps US skin in the Moon game. This has nothing to do with Mars.
Moreover, an optimal Mars lander would be fully propulsive. This would give it the capability to make a pinpoint landing anywhere on Mars surface without having to worry about the atmospheric density. Yeah sure it requires more propellant than landing with parachutes that can fail and hefty heat shields, but it's a lot easier to design, and the extra propellant required can be imported from the Moon.
Another issue is that a lunar base would have higher radiation doses than a Martian one (at lower altitudes), so astronauts on an EVA would always have to fear a big solar particle event, while astronauts on Mars would have the advantage of a significant atmosphere that filters out solar particle events to non-life-threatening levels.
Not an issue. Moon will have radiation protected habitats. Early warning of solar flares will be provided by a satellites at the Earth Sun L-1 point.
Lunar structures would also have to contend with micrometeorites, something that's not an issue on Mars because of Mars's atmosphere.
Well, after 50 years of spaceflight, there has yet to be a loss of a vehicle or human life to a micrometeorite. Evidently, there's no crisis there.
Also, the Moon has much larger temperature swings because of its utter lack of atmosphere.
Wrong. At permanently illuminated plateaus in the polar regions, the ambient temperature is a balmy -50 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees. Arguably better than South Pole Station in the winter.
-
For an asteroid can the DSH follow behind the asteroid and anchor to it?
Could it then be possible to use the line between the two as a space elevator between the two?
If so how long would the line have to be?
-
For an asteroid can the DSH follow behind the asteroid and anchor to it?
Could it then be possible to use the line between the two as a space elevator between the two?
If so how long would the line have to be?
The asteroid would have to be solid. A tether would just cut through a rouble asteroid releasing the DSH.
-
If we go to Phobos, for example, the public is going to ask why we didn’t land on Mars instead. We can’t use “Mars is hard” and expect them to understand and buy it. They would see it as going on a road trip across country to see the Empire State Building in NYC and not going up to the top when you got there.
The answer is that NASA is building the spacestation on Phobos. There are plenty of towns where the railway stops outside the town and you get a taxi to your hotel. The large inter-planetary spacecraft are not designed to operate in an atmosphere and it would be too expensive to make them.
That is nice and tidy. The public could understand that! :)
That, plus the Most Stunning Picture Ever: astronauts planting the flag with monster Mars as background, a huge ocher globe masking half of the sky.