-
#60 by Khadgars on 11 Jan, 2010 03:05
-
Quote
We can sit back and say "I told you so" when all the cash gets wasted on something of no importance, because that is all that is going to happen. As opposed to other posters, I strongly believe it was the Democrats, and not the Republicans who screwed up NASA. Sadly, at this point it doesn't really matter.
Bush absolutely destroyed NASA, but I'm sure you'll just ignore that and believe illegal aliens are the cause of all America's problems. But it isn't just Bush either, as many have stated here, the issue is far more complicated. Having said that, Obama may be in position to correct the many wrongs of the past, a democrat no less
-
#61 by Andy USA on 11 Jan, 2010 03:11
-
No we don't. This will not turn into a politics debate.
-
#62 by yg1968 on 11 Jan, 2010 03:25
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
I think it has more to do with the developmental cost of Altair (which will be postponed because of lack of money due to the ISS extension). Although I don't know what the developmental cost of the space hab module would be. -
#63 by ChrisSpaceCH on 11 Jan, 2010 04:37
-
This article, and the other suggested missions on the "flexible path" idea are great ideas, on paper.
But they are nothing but paper, that is all they will ever be, and that is what is so discouraging. Dollars to donuts NASA has stacks and stacks of these kind of missions in an archive somewhere, where generations of people from vonBraun on have dreamed and thought and planned and hoped that something good could happen in space.
But it is not going to happen. None of this stuff is going to happen, so let's just use the ISS well until 2020, imperfect as it is. Then let's watch the next "green jobs" type fad or the next designer disease or some other cause suck up all the time and cash which could have been used to do something real for all humanity.
Which is why international cooperation is the way to go, even though it seems to enrage some people here. Yes, it tends to delay things and make them more expensive. Yes, we have to wait on unreliable partners. But it also locks plans "in place" once the agreements have been signed, preventing a future administration from easily cancelling them and funelling the money to their newest pet project. Without international agreements, ISS would never have been built and NASA would still be doing short LEO-stints in the Shuttle (not returning to the moon as ISS-haters seem to think) -
#64 by Analyst on 11 Jan, 2010 06:58
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Ross.
My suggestion would be a 'duplicate' Hubble.
1) We already built one. I think the second mirror is gone now, but it shouldn't be too hard to build a new one (the one with the correct curvature that is...)
2) We already have all the specs for the instruments, so build a second set, or if possible & available, use any of Hubble's ground spares.
3) It can use all the existing ground systems for Hubble, so we may only need a few extra ground personnel.
4) If Hubble finally does come to pass, since the systems are identical, there is no learning curve, and the people can transition seamlessly to the new one(s).
I would say 1/3 the cost of Hubble, whatever that was, since the engineering is already done.
You are forgetting this is looking for a problem to be solved by a HLV. A Hubble size telescope could be launched by an EELV, with margin.
Anyway, there is no budget, again. Folks are just dreaming. Five years is completely unrealistic, even for a ground based telescope. You need instruments and such, pointing, there are very tight tolerances to be in focus ... heck, first you need a 8.2m mirror, they are not sitting on the shelf.
Once your HLV is working and SMDs budget is back there is once has been in buying power, and there is a reasonable expectation of it growing even more, let us talk about this again. Circa 2020 at the earliest.
Analyst -
#65 by Lambda-4 on 11 Jan, 2010 07:28
-
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Considering the engineering effort, time schedule and costs to get a 3.5m single mirror for Herschel, I doubt a 8.2m single mirror could be constructed on the cheap or quickly. This would be an engineering effort on a scale not yet seen when it comes to space telescopes, precision is key in this area of engineering and with a 8.2m diameter mirror the material scientists will get into a lot of problems. -
#66 by Analyst on 11 Jan, 2010 07:40
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst -
#67 by ChrisSpaceCH on 11 Jan, 2010 08:13
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Who cares about what scientists want, anyway?
When has NASA last listened to a scientist?
If NASA were really interested in doing science only, then there would be no HSF program, and that money would be used for a massive robotic exploration program instead.
However, this will never happen. Even an anti-HSF scientist actually became NASA administrator and managed to push this through. Congress would just slash the NASA budget and send those funds somewhere else.
NASA needs HSF to get political support. NASA needs an impressive BFR because, lets just face it, a Shuttle launch or a Saturn V launch is much more impressive and looks better on TV than a Delta launch... -
#68 by Lambda-4 on 11 Jan, 2010 08:46
-
NASA needs HSF to get political support. NASA needs an impressive BFR because, lets just face it, a Shuttle launch or a Saturn V launch is much more impressive and looks better on TV than a Delta launch...
NASA would be more like ESA if its HSF part is stripped down to a bare minimum. NASA would be smaller of course, the question is whether this were so bad.
But the old discussion HSF vs. non-HSF is OT here.
Going back to the topic, Flexible Path missions to NEOs shouldn't be carried out in the fashion suggested here. Rather than having robotic precursor missions and making NEO missions major endevours with a single convenient target in mind, NASA should outline reference missions for a dozen NEOs in the 2020-2030 timeframe. All these reference missions should be able to be carried out with the same hardware. As a consequence NEO missions could be carried out at any convenient point of time in that decade.
However the focus of any Flexible Path program should be Phobos and Deimos. That's were we want to go, because that's where Mars is. -
#69 by Nathan on 11 Jan, 2010 10:37
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
-
#70 by Lambda-4 on 11 Jan, 2010 11:12
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
You can use a 100mt HLV for science missions. But your payloads will not be cheap nor quickly developed. Expect several billion dollars per payload and 10-15 years development time. -
#71 by William Barton on 11 Jan, 2010 11:44
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...). -
#72 by ChrisSpaceCH on 11 Jan, 2010 12:16
-
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
I trust this is sarcasm.
The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.
Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).
Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures. -
#73 by Downix on 11 Jan, 2010 12:25
-
Why so late? DIRECT had such a flyby in '15 in it's profile.Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
I trust this is sarcasm.
The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.
Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).
Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures. -
#74 by infocat13 on 11 Jan, 2010 13:37
-
Yes, I know Orion has to be developed and built.
But I don't see this NEO Asteroid visit being any less costly than return moon landing.
This asteroid lander/long term hab module isn't going to be less costly than Altair.
Wasn't the main point about Flex Path was reduced cost?
Its beautiful,
flexible path habs would be an ISS follow on mission.The international community builds the habs along with "us". Even a lunar lander could be built by the international community.We build the launcher and Orion
(A cheap launcher). -
#75 by William Barton on 11 Jan, 2010 13:55
-
Scientists are the root of all evil, the central cause of human misery in modern times. Let's see. Stake. Rope. Firewood. Now, if I can just get this fire drill to work (matches, of course, being the work of evil scientists...).
I trust this is sarcasm.
The bad news is, the number of people who DO believe science is the root of all evil has never been larger than it is today.
Back to the topic at hand: If NASA plays its cards right, and adopts an architecture somewhere along the lines of what I posted previously (lunar flyby, lunar orbit, GEO construction, a few NEOs culminating in a flight to Phobos; even without ever landing on the moon) and does this at an appreciable rhythm (some new mission every few years), I believe it will captivate world audience AND KEEP THE ATTENTION much better than during the Apollo years (where there were basically only 2 "events": Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).
Even a lunar flyby in 2018 would have almost the same effect as Apollo 8 had in 1968, IMO, since most people alive then weren't even born when Borman & Co. made their historic Genesis reading and Earthrise pictures.
Your second sentence was my actual point, the sarcasm intended to point out this "HSF eats unmanned planetary exploration" argument is a zer-sum-game argument, and ultimately a losers' argument. No one here has any answers to the underlying "why" questions for anything they want to do, whether its, "toy cars on Mars" or "big honking rockets." -
#76 by Bill White on 11 Jan, 2010 15:02
-
William, there are answers, however I believe they are more existential in nature than utilitarian.
Identity driven motivations, not utility driven motivations.
-
#77 by dad2059 on 11 Jan, 2010 15:20
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
Getting some scientists aboard could help get some long range robot missions launched, say, to the Kuiper Belt perhaps. Using a more powerful rocket could get the probe there quicker, shorter time scales.
Plus the scientists could analyze the results within their lifetimes. -
#78 by luke strawwalker on 11 Jan, 2010 15:24
-
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).
TOTALLY AGREE!!! There is SO much more SCIENCE that we can and SHOULD be doing with robotic probes, which in many ways, are necessary precursors to maximize the effectiveness and science return of a manned mission... Even on the moon, there is STILL TONS AND TONS of research that could be done by even rather modest teleoperated rovers, and that SHOULD be done before a manned return is contemplated, let alone performed. There's nothing to say that we may miss the 'gold mine' of information return possible from a human mission just because we 'landed in the wrong place' where the intelligent use of rovers and robotic probes could easily have done the forerunner work for us and let us direct the manned efforts at the most promising sites. This goes DOUBLE for Mars!
Apollo didn't have the time to perform much in the way of precursors, other than the minimum necessary for mapping (Ranger and Lunar Orbiter) and to make sure the surface wasn't 50 foot deep dust powder that couldn't be landed on (Surveyor) which was the most basic 'requirement' for a precursor mission to establish a lunar landing was possible. We shouldn't follow that paradigm this time-- do the robotic science first, so you know where best to put your boots on the ground for maximum return!
And for the outer solar system, which we're quite unlikely to visit until the end of this century, if at all, we SHOULD be doing the robotic missions that we can. Even at Jupiter, the radiation levels are SO high that even if we could get a manned mission there, other than teleoperation of robotic probes, there would be little point. The radiation levels are too high for a Europa landing (FWIUnderstand) and Io would probably be too dangerous due to constant volcanism, and radiation. Saturn is TWICE as far away and highly unlikely to be targeted for a manned mission in this century, barring a MAJOR leap forward in propulsion capabilities, among others. SO, we SHOULD be doing the robotic exploration that we can at these sites, because manned missions may never be feasible anyway.
Besides, we need to KNOW... to LEARN... and the pictures would be FANTASTIC!!! Imagine the boost in public interest for the space program from a Titan airship beaming pictures back to Earth, periodically lowering a gondola of instruments/cameras to the surface (solid and LIQUID which nobody has ever seen anywhere else-- NOT JUST DUST AND ROCKS!!!) JIMO could tell us SO much... as could Herschel...
JMHO... OL JR
-
#79 by luke strawwalker on 11 Jan, 2010 15:37
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
Well, Analyst has a point... without the $$$ to develop those possibilities into hardware and make use of the HLV capability, it's all just dreams...
That's why Ares I/V make NO sense-- no budget left to do a damn thing with them! So what's the point?? OL JR
