-
NASA’s Flexible Path evaluation of 2025 human mission to visit an asteroid
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jan, 2010 03:53
-
-
#1
by
Nascent Ascent
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:14
-
6 months in only an Orion capsule?
-
#2
by
yg1968
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:27
-
-
#3
by
Maverick
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:30
-
6 months in only an Orion capsule?
Orion is the transport. There's Habs they dock to for long duration.
-
#4
by
Nascent Ascent
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:36
-
So this hab or NEO lander would have to be built and tested
-
#5
by
Carl G
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:40
-
So this hab or NEO lander would have to be built and tested
As does Orion, ironically.
Really enjoying this series on Flexible path.
-
#6
by
Downix
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:47
-
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.
-
#7
by
Nascent Ascent
on 10 Jan, 2010 04:50
-
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?
-
#8
by
Nathan
on 10 Jan, 2010 05:13
-
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.
-
#9
by
Nascent Ascent
on 10 Jan, 2010 05:19
-
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.
-
#10
by
ChrisSpaceCH
on 10 Jan, 2010 06:08
-
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.
-
#11
by
Nathan
on 10 Jan, 2010 07:31
-
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.
-
#12
by
Lambda-4
on 10 Jan, 2010 08:23
-
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.
-
#13
by
Nathan
on 10 Jan, 2010 09:08
-
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.
-
#14
by
William Barton
on 10 Jan, 2010 09:22
-
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?
-
#15
by
William Barton
on 10 Jan, 2010 09:46
-
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.
-
#16
by
ChrisSpaceCH
on 10 Jan, 2010 11:01
-
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...
-
#17
by
Analyst
on 10 Jan, 2010 11:51
-
"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
-
#18
by
ChrisSpaceCH
on 10 Jan, 2010 12:13
-
"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...
-
#19
by
Lambda-4
on 10 Jan, 2010 12:44
-
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.