-
#300
by
ChileVerde
on 14 Jul, 2013 14:39
-
-
#301
by
yg1968
on 01 Aug, 2013 18:21
-
Here is a presentation on an update to the Asteroid mission which was given yesterday at the NAC meeting:
-
#302
by
sdsds
on 01 Aug, 2013 19:00
-
Here is a presentation on an update to the Asteroid mission which was given yesterday at the NAC meeting
Thanks! The "First Steps Upward" chart (attached) seems fairly compelling.
-
#303
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Aug, 2013 19:45
-
...and this is why the asteroid idea is a good idea. Because Mars is an INCREDIBLY ambitious but /worthwhile/ goal right now. And we need to start somewhere with a very limited budget. If we've done the asteroid, then a further asteroid is just an incremental step. Then Phobos is an incremental step beyond that. Then we have a need for a lander (which is a pretty big deal), but that's really ALL we need to get to a surface mission once we have Mars orbital missions down. And once we have a lander, it's just a matter of using one of the landers to bring a big habitat down (and we can already do about 1 metric ton of bulk cargo to the surface of Mars using something like a single Atlas V and Skycrane, so raw material resupply is feasible... and there are ways to at least double this without increasing launch mass), and we can do multi-year missions. Add another hab or so, and we can have a permanent crew (with rotations) on Mars. On another planet.
Improve the supply chain, do more and more ISRU, reduce the cost of sustaining the base, and there's no fundamental reason we can't sustain it indefinitely (and just continuously exploring and studying Mars, expanding capability as we improve efficiency) like the Russians have been with their LEO stations and we have been since ISS started. And hopefully other people will start coming.
Break everything into bite-size and somewhat stand-alone pieces so they can be defeated one by one. Make the architecture flexible so we can go to an asteroid or the Moon if we want. But above all, make it doable with a feasible budget and always take a step forward.
-
#304
by
A_M_Swallow
on 01 Aug, 2013 20:51
-
Phobos has a surface gravity of 0.0084–0.0019 m/s2 and an escape velocity of 11.3 m/s (40 km/h). (From Wikipedia)
The low gravity of Phobos may allow a small lander to be made by putting the MMSEV on top of the Morpheus lander. The hardware will need spacerating and the electronics radiation proofing.
-
#305
by
yg1968
on 03 Aug, 2013 15:28
-
-
#306
by
sdsds
on 03 Aug, 2013 17:43
-
-
#307
by
JohnFornaro
on 05 Aug, 2013 13:42
-
Has anybody noticed that it's now a beachball?
-
#308
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Aug, 2013 14:27
-
By the way, for those complaining that the asteroid mission isn't a straight shot to Mars instead:
In fact, this is exactly how Apollo did it. After Mercury, Gemini demonstrated in-orbit rendezvous and longer and longer durations, in addition to spacewalks. Gemini didn't grab the golden ring, but did expand the operational experience enough that a trip to the Moon no longer sounded as insane.
Apollo 7 tested the CM in LEO. Apollo 8 did a circumlunar flight. Apollo 9 demonstrated operations of the lander and CM in LEO, tested docking, rendezvous, propulsion, EVA, etc. Heck, Apollo 10 went all the way to the Moon, started landing, and intentionally aborted less than ten miles above the lunar surface and came home.
The asteroid and Mars orbital mission architectures follow the same path but on a longer timescale (necessarily!).
-
#309
by
notsorandom
on 05 Aug, 2013 19:25
-
Initially I thought that the asteroid retrieval mission was pretty cool. However I don't think so any more. This mission would develop a propulsion system that would be useful for deep space propulsion. The same setup which seems to be the most logical for a Mars trip. SEP though can be developed to the same level and test flown though for much less than the $2 billion+ price tag of this mission. There doesn't appear to be any other big ticket capabilities this mission would develop. In terms of building capability for a Mars mission I do not think that represents a good expenditure. Especially early in the program when funds are the most scarce.
-
#310
by
Heinrich
on 05 Aug, 2013 19:49
-
Has anybody noticed that it's now a beachball?
With an oversized NDS it starts to fit in a cargo Dragon. (other capsule brands available) At 1 m (lower end mentioned in YG's attachment) and at < 3ton downmass (SpaceX website) it's doable to bring the beachball home.
Dunno about dv required though.
-
#311
by
KelvinZero
on 07 Aug, 2013 09:32
-
SEP though can be developed to the same level and test flown though for much less than the $2 billion+ price tag of this mission. There doesn't appear to be any other big ticket capabilities this mission would develop. In terms of building capability for a Mars mission I do not think that represents a good expenditure. Especially early in the program when funds are the most scarce.
It is really a question of what else you could possibly fly the Orion to with essentially no money. I would like to see the SEP developed as a workhorse, but there is no money for an EML2 base for it to move. This way it has a mission without much extra resources.
It is also the quickest route to ISRU, which to my mind should be the whole focus of HSF.
-
#312
by
notsorandom
on 07 Aug, 2013 17:49
-
SEP though can be developed to the same level and test flown though for much less than the $2 billion+ price tag of this mission. There doesn't appear to be any other big ticket capabilities this mission would develop. In terms of building capability for a Mars mission I do not think that represents a good expenditure. Especially early in the program when funds are the most scarce.
It is really a question of what else you could possibly fly the Orion to with essentially no money. I would like to see the SEP developed as a workhorse, but there is no money for an EML2 base for it to move. This way it has a mission without much extra resources.
It is also the quickest route to ISRU, which to my mind should be the whole focus of HSF.
There is extra money beyond what is needed for an SLS/Orion mission being proposed. If we are going to scrape together a couple billion dollars to add to the BEO program is the asteroid retrieval mission or something else the best use of that money?
-
#313
by
HappyMartian
on 08 Aug, 2013 06:31
-
....
There is extra money beyond what is needed for an SLS/Orion mission being proposed. If we are going to scrape together a couple billion dollars to add to the BEO program is the asteroid retrieval mission or something else the best use of that money?
[/quote]
Yep. Perhaps not everyone is buying into the asteroid mission.
"On close examination, none of the claimed benefits of the proposed asteroid mission are valid."
From:
Congressional Bipartisanship and the ARM August 2, 2013 by Paul Spudis
At:
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/
-
#314
by
KelvinZero
on 08 Aug, 2013 09:58
-
There is extra money beyond what is needed for an SLS/Orion mission being proposed. If we are going to scrape together a couple billion dollars to add to the BEO program is the asteroid retrieval mission or something else the best use of that money?
Something else encompasses infinite possibilities. We probably all have schemes we think are better. I have one myself. However this was by far the best of the ideas that have actually been tabled that I can think of. Essentially our choices are, a flight to nowhere, this, or a lunar architecture which we now know is just code for build an even bigger SLS and still forget to allocate any money for even a lander.
-
#315
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Aug, 2013 10:47
-
Send Robonaut 2 to do the mission, what's he/she been up to lately?. They were at one point going to send him/her to the Moon. Sending the Astros is just a waste of time and money and not worth the risk...
-
#316
by
newpylong
on 08 Aug, 2013 15:44
-
I was not a fan of this to start. I have since been convinced. I see no other alternatives that fit within anticipated budget profiles that achieve such a broad set of goals.
Are there other things we could do? Yeah... I would like to see a permanent human presence on the moon. Do I think it is the best use of NASA resources? Not unless we want to ever get to Mars. Let the private sector go back.
In my opinion this mission sets achievable milestones. If hyped properly the public should be able to get behind it.
BTW - of course Spudis doesn't agree with it. Look at his website, his desired path isn't hard to figure out.
-
#317
by
JohnFornaro
on 08 Aug, 2013 15:54
-
If hyped properly the public should be able to get behind it.
I suppose there's a science of "hype"?
I cannot support a path forwar which is based on hype and not rational arguments.
-
#318
by
kch
on 08 Aug, 2013 16:06
-
If hyped properly the public should be able to get behind it.
I suppose there's a science of "hype"?
Indeed there is -- IIRC, it's called "hyperbolics" (as in "a load of") ...
-
#319
by
notsorandom
on 08 Aug, 2013 17:24
-
There is extra money beyond what is needed for an SLS/Orion mission being proposed. If we are going to scrape together a couple billion dollars to add to the BEO program is the asteroid retrieval mission or something else the best use of that money?
Something else encompasses infinite possibilities. We probably all have schemes we think are better. I have one myself. However this was by far the best of the ideas that have actually been tabled that I can think of. Essentially our choices are, a flight to nowhere, this, or a lunar architecture which we now know is just code for build an even bigger SLS and still forget to allocate any money for even a lander.
Perhaps I should be more specific in my criteria. The extra money is the $2 billion dollars needed for the asteroid retrieval mission. I am thinking about this in the framework of pioneering the new techniques and hardware needed to get to Mars. Scientifically this mission represents little value. Also there is little in terms of planetary defense this project would accomplish beyond its initial search for a target body.
So for an option to be better than the asteroid retrieval mission it would have to check off more items on the "needed for Mars" list for the same expenditure. As far as I can tell the only thing this mission will add over EM-2 to L2 is the construction and demonstration of a SEP system that could be scaled up for a human deep space mission. This SEP system could be tested in space for a lower price that the whole mission.
Certainly a deep space habitat will be necessary for further BEO missions. For a rough comparison the Destiny module on the ISS cost around $1.2 to $1.4 billion (depending on which source is looked at). The money could also be used for an upper stage to SLS that would give it more BEO throw weight. In the short term could this money be used to visit a much larger and more interesting asteroid sooner? I could keep brainstorming but my point is that I am dubious that the asteroid retrieval mission is the wisest investment.
