-
#40
by
robertross
on 10 Jan, 2010 16:02
-
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...
-
#41
by
William Barton
on 10 Jan, 2010 16:13
-
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.
-
#42
by
Nascent Ascent
on 10 Jan, 2010 16:14
-
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?
-
#43
by
robertross
on 10 Jan, 2010 16:28
-
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.
-
#44
by
Norm Hartnett
on 10 Jan, 2010 16:42
-
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?
-
#45
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 10 Jan, 2010 16:53
-
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.
-
#46
by
robertross
on 10 Jan, 2010 19:22
-
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).
-
#47
by
William Barton
on 10 Jan, 2010 19:51
-
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.
-
#48
by
kraisee
on 10 Jan, 2010 19:55
-
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.
-
#49
by
William Barton
on 10 Jan, 2010 20:01
-
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...
-
#50
by
ChrisSpaceCH
on 10 Jan, 2010 20:24
-
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).
-
#51
by
notsorandom
on 10 Jan, 2010 21:11
-
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.
-
#52
by
kraisee
on 10 Jan, 2010 21:35
-
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.
-
#53
by
robertross
on 10 Jan, 2010 22:25
-
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.
-
#54
by
Jorge
on 10 Jan, 2010 22:29
-
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).
-
#55
by
robertross
on 10 Jan, 2010 22:41
-
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.
-
#56
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 11 Jan, 2010 01:22
-
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.
-
#57
by
Lee Jay
on 11 Jan, 2010 01:31
-
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.
-
#58
by
Nascent Ascent
on 11 Jan, 2010 01:49
-
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.
-
#59
by
jkumpire
on 11 Jan, 2010 02:53
-
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.
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.