-
#540
by
TrevorMonty
on 26 Sep, 2015 06:04
-
0.76kw x8800hrs (1year) =6.7mw/hr
So product 1t of propellant a year you need 760W of continuous power.
Okey doke. It all makes sense now. Sorry. I got tripped up over the 6.7MW/hr thing. But I think 7.6kw isn't that big an array for 500 mT of propellant, and I guess that's the authors' point. I'm now sold on taking water to orbit for propellant depots.
Thanks for posting that paper!
You need 380kw solar array in continuous sunlight to produce 500mt a year.
-
#541
by
daveklingler
on 13 Oct, 2015 02:07
-
0.76kw x8800hrs (1year) =6.7mw/hr
So product 1t of propellant a year you need 760W of continuous power.
Okey doke. It all makes sense now. Sorry. I got tripped up over the 6.7MW/hr thing. But I think 7.6kw isn't that big an array for 500 mT of propellant, and I guess that's the authors' point. I'm now sold on taking water to orbit for propellant depots.
Thanks for posting that paper!
You need 380kw solar array in continuous sunlight to produce 500mt a year.
Sigh. Right.
-
#542
by
redliox
on 13 Oct, 2015 09:24
-
This one won't survive the end of the Obama administration.
After the next president is installed, there will be period of a year or so in which the new administration will figure out the strategic issue of whether to replace ARM with a new mission or announce a technology development program so that One Day We Can Go to Mars.
A third alternative is for the new president to announce we are going to Mars but not really plan for it.
Hopefully there'll be a chance for the better than for the lame. If ARM is going to survive, it will have to evolve into a kind of Phobos precursor mission that tests SEP while extracting samples. It is clear NASA won't send crews beyond the Moon for some time, so testing at least hardware a cargo ship could use is sensible.
Aside from stating an ARM opinion, mainly just reaching out to ask.....
"has anyone heard any NEW ARM news yet?"
-
#543
by
Khadgars
on 22 Nov, 2015 19:24
-
This one won't survive the end of the Obama administration.
After the next president is installed, there will be period of a year or so in which the new administration will figure out the strategic issue of whether to replace ARM with a new mission or announce a technology development program so that One Day We Can Go to Mars.
A third alternative is for the new president to announce we are going to Mars but not really plan for it.
Hopefully there'll be a chance for the better than for the lame. If ARM is going to survive, it will have to evolve into a kind of Phobos precursor mission that tests SEP while extracting samples. It is clear NASA won't send crews beyond the Moon for some time, so testing at least hardware a cargo ship could use is sensible.
Aside from stating an ARM opinion, mainly just reaching out to ask....."has anyone heard any NEW ARM news yet?"
About a month ago NASA started competition for ARM bus.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-starts-competition-for-asteroid-redirect-spacecraft/
-
#544
by
redliox
on 24 Nov, 2015 08:59
-
-
#545
by
KelvinZero
on 24 Nov, 2015 21:10
-
Sent them an email and politely suggested they aim for Phobos and Deimos if they wish to remain relevant toward the human BEO effort...phrased as politely as humanely possible...albeit with a Donald Trump joke thrown in to emphasize the importance of change.
Did that Phobos ARM mission concept evolve to anything sensible? It just seemed a way to cancel ARM and SEP funding to me by bloating it and removing its relevance to an SLS mission. Maybe someone should restart the thread that discussed it. I did a quick look but couldn't find it.
-
#546
by
Robotbeat
on 25 Nov, 2015 00:35
-
Sent them an email and politely suggested they aim for Phobos and Deimos if they wish to remain relevant toward the human BEO effort...phrased as politely as humanely possible...albeit with a Donald Trump joke thrown in to emphasize the importance of change.
Did that Phobos ARM mission concept evolve to anything sensible? It just seemed a way to cancel ARM and SEP funding to me by bloating it and removing its relevance to an SLS mission. Maybe someone should restart the thread that discussed it. I did a quick look but couldn't find it.
The point of Phobos ARM is in case a Republican is elected president next year, ARM can be "canceled" and repurposed (with basically the same exact hardware and mission) to go to Phobos instead of a Near Earth Asteroid.
-
#547
by
NovaSilisko
on 25 Nov, 2015 00:36
-
Am I the only one left who likes the boulder retrieval mission followed, crucially, by the gravity tractor demo?
-
#548
by
Robotbeat
on 25 Nov, 2015 01:03
-
Am I the only one left who likes the boulder retrieval mission followed, crucially, by the gravity tractor demo?
not at all!
It's a really good idea, and a rare way to demonstrate several things in a single mission without major added costs.
If you care generally about spaceflight (instead of having an agenda--Moon or bust, etc) and want broad-based future capabilities, ARM is genius.
-
#549
by
A_M_Swallow
on 25 Nov, 2015 02:26
-
ARRM SEP is about 50 kW where as the proposed Mars SEP is ~100 kW. So projects may be able to buy a medium sized SEP for around half the price of the high powered SEP. Projects will have to trade price against payload mass and longer flight times.
-
#550
by
daveklingler
on 24 May, 2016 19:12
-
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-114-hr-fy2017-cjs.pdf, p. 61:
"Toward that end, no funds are included in this bill for NASA to continue planning efforts to conduct either robotic or crewed missions to an asteroid."
Sigh. Well, that's that, then, I guess. Not that I had much hope, but it looks like Culberson figures that SLS is better used for his Europa mission.
-
#551
by
redliox
on 24 May, 2016 21:26
-
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-114-hr-fy2017-cjs.pdf, p. 61:
"Toward that end, no funds are included in this bill for NASA to continue planning efforts to conduct either robotic or crewed missions to an asteroid."
Sigh. Well, that's that, then, I guess. Not that I had much hope, but it looks like Culberson figures that SLS is better used for his Europa mission.
Pretty much, although we'll know for sure next year when administrations change. On the other hand, if you were on the Moon-side of the Asteroid/Moon/Mars debate:
"Instead, NASA is encouraged to develop plans to return
to the Moon to test capabilities that will be needed for Mars, including
habitation modules, lunar prospecting, and landing and ascent
vehicles."
It seems the Moon-path is going to win out after 8 years of debating it.
-
#552
by
TrevorMonty
on 25 May, 2016 06:06
-
The moon should be cheaper now than when Constellation was the only path. Between SLS and more capable lower price commercial LVs (FH, Vulcan, OA NGLV) plus X prize landers and rovers costs have come down. The commercial companies are more than capable of handling cargo side of any missions.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
-
#553
by
jgoldader
on 25 May, 2016 12:57
-
"Instead, NASA is encouraged to develop plans to return
to the Moon to test capabilities that will be needed for Mars, including
habitation modules, lunar prospecting, and landing and ascent
vehicles."
It seems the Moon-path is going to win out after 8 years of debating it.
It makes more sense to me to plunk the $2+B that the asteroid mission would have cost into hab module development. The asteroid mission was a one-off, but you need a hab module and long-lived ECLSS capability for any long-duration flight. The actual module/station/etc. that might come out of Congress' wishes need not be limited to any one mission (e.g., Moon landings), customer, or customer's vehicle.
And maybe one day, a spacecraft will tow a boulder from an asteroid to the hab.
-
#554
by
A_M_Swallow
on 25 May, 2016 13:24
-
It makes more sense to me to plunk the $2+B that the asteroid mission would have cost into hab module development. The asteroid mission was a one-off, but you need a hab module and long-lived ECLSS capability for any long-duration flight. The actual module/station/etc. that might come out of Congress' wishes need not be limited to any one mission (e.g., Moon landings), customer, or customer's vehicle.
And maybe one day, a spacecraft will tow a boulder from an asteroid to the hab.
Or we could use the ARM SEP tug to push the habitat out to lunar orbit.
-
#555
by
CJ
on 29 May, 2016 01:19
-
Looks like ARM may be getting the chop in the new appropriations bill;
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/05/house-appropria-6.htmlHere's an excerpt;
Toward that end, no funds are included in this bill for NASA to continue planning efforts to conduct either robotic or crewed missions to an asteroid. Instead, NASA is encouraged to develop plans to return to the Moon to test capabilities that will be needed for Mars, including habitation modules, lunar prospecting, and landing and ascent vehicles.
-
#556
by
GWH
on 29 May, 2016 01:46
-
"Instead, NASA is encouraged to develop plans to return
to the Moon to test capabilities that will be needed for Mars, including
habitation modules, lunar prospecting, and landing and ascent
vehicles."
It seems the Moon-path is going to win out after 8 years of debating it.
It makes more sense to me to plunk the $2+B that the asteroid mission would have cost into hab module development. The asteroid mission was a one-off, but you need a hab module and long-lived ECLSS capability for any long-duration flight. The actual module/station/etc. that might come out of Congress' wishes need not be limited to any one mission (e.g., Moon landings), customer, or customer's vehicle.
And maybe one day, a spacecraft will tow a boulder from an asteroid to the hab.
Plan should have been to tug multiple asteroid samples to a cislunar hab where astronauts can study and sample over a few months. Kick start asteroid mining while learning about long term deep space habitation.
-
#557
by
KelvinZero
on 14 Jun, 2016 11:04
-
Looks like ARM may be getting the chop in the new appropriations bill;
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/05/house-appropria-6.html
Here's an excerpt;
Toward that end, no funds are included in this bill for NASA to continue planning efforts to conduct either robotic or crewed missions to an asteroid. Instead, NASA is encouraged to develop plans to return to the Moon to test capabilities that will be needed for Mars, including habitation modules, lunar prospecting, and landing and ascent vehicles.
Sounds like the usual political nonsense. There is no 'Instead'. There are about two orders of magnitude difference in cost and it is mainly stuff you should do anyway, such as develop a SEP tug and master a lunar rendezvous.
All they want to do is feed the last peanuts of tech development to their elephant. Wake me when they start talking about funding a lander and a lunar base in parallel, rather than after the SLS is sitting on the launch pad.
-
#558
by
TomH
on 17 Jun, 2016 02:35
-
With the discovery of HO3, there is now a target to aim for without hauling some VW sized rock back from elsewhere. HO3 is about 9M mi at its closest. Taking Orion with a Bigelow hab seems like a reasonable early (yea..that's a relative term here) mission.
-
#559
by
Proponent
on 17 Jun, 2016 10:30
-