NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids

#20 by Robotbeat on 25 Mar, 2012 04:05
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
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.

Quote
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.
#21 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:42
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
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
#22 by TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 04:42
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
... 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.
#23 by edkyle99 on 25 Mar, 2012 04:45
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
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
#24 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:57
Quote from: TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 04:42
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
... 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.
#25 by Robotbeat on 25 Mar, 2012 05:06
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!
#26 by TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 05:10
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:57

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.
#27 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 05:20
Quote from: TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 05:10
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:57

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?
#28 by TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 05:30
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 05:20
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.

Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 05:20
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!)
#29 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 05:45
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.
#30 by TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 06:12
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 05:45
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.
#31 by A_M_Swallow on 25 Mar, 2012 10:08
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.
#32 by CitabriaFlyer on 25 Mar, 2012 14:57
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.
#33 by JohnFornaro on 25 Mar, 2012 15:26
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 24 Mar, 2012 15:58
I just had a read of Chris' latest article...

Quote from: LegendCJS on 24 Mar, 2012 16:36
John, did we read the same article?

Holy reading comprehension skills, Batman!

Quote from: JF
[The SEV] is probably the "lander" that is thought to be "cheaper"

Quote from: Legend
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. 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 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.

Quote from: JF
Such a craft would probably offer a shirtsleeve environment for the astros to pick at the rock...

Quote from: Legend
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.

Quote from: the article
(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.

Quote from: Legend
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.

Quote from: JF
But John's proposing a lunar base for four astros, what about all that infrastructure?

Quote from: Legend
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.
#34 by Robotbeat on 25 Mar, 2012 16:32
Quote from: TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 05:10
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:57

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.
#35 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 20:38
Quote from: TomH on 25 Mar, 2012 06:12
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 05:45
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.
#36 by clongton on 25 Mar, 2012 20:46
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.
#37 by Ben the Space Brit on 25 Mar, 2012 21:00
Quote from: clongton on 25 Mar, 2012 20:46
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.
#38 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 21:07
Quote from: clongton on 25 Mar, 2012 20:46
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.
#39 by Ben the Space Brit on 25 Mar, 2012 21:07
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:42
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
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