Genesis Mission Reentry September 8, Western US

[dreada5]

<i>Let's see: larger launch vehicle, control and propulsion systems for capture of Genesis sample return capsule into Earth orbit and rendezvous with ISS, launch of special equipment and/or facilities to ISS to receive said capsule, ISS crew training and safety, Soyuz or Space Shuttle costs for return to Earth, etc. <br /><br />And all of this for solar wind samples. <br /><br />In my opinion, an extra $200 million for your "fly it to ISS" scenario is not an unreasonable estimate. </i><br /><br />The fact is you don't want believe it can be done cheaply. Well it can. You've exaggerated the costs/procedures.<br /><br />If this mission was designed to capitalise on existing knowledge/hardware then you wouldn't need additional conventional hardware/resources. Progressive delta-vee change via multiple elliptical orbits until it gets into ISS's orbit could have been used OR perhaps even aero-braking - then extra propellant wouldn't be needed and nor a larger launcher. If it was planned this way from the beginning - basic ISS examination facilites would already be in place (they would no doubt come in useful again in future). The robotic arm capture/holds it, an astronaut gets video training from JPL and goes out with tools to retrieve collectors. Alternatively if we don't wanna be creative stow it at the ISS until the next shuttle comes up to fit ISS structural components.<br /><br />Simplified? May be, but my point there are ALWAYS options if we open our eyes.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Plus, if you have a catastrophic mission failure in attempting to dock with the ISS, you could depressurize the ISS, basically totalling it and quite possibly killing the crew, whereas the Earth was pretty much undamaged by Genesis' actual failure. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /><br />Done properly by competent engineers, I think the risk equates to docking a soyuz and we do that regularly!</p></blockquote></p></blockquote>

 

[ew72]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The fact is you don't want believe it can be done cheaply. Well it can. You've exaggerated the costs/procedures. <br /><br />If this mission was designed to capitalise on existing knowledge/hardware then you wouldn't need additional conventional hardware/resources. Progressive delta-vee change via decreasing ISS orbits could have been used OR perhaps even aero-braking - then extra propellant wouldn't be needed and nor a larger launcher. If it was planned this way from the beginning - basic ISS examination facilites would already be in place (they would no doubt come in useful again in future). The robotic arm capture/holds it, an astronaut gets video training from JPL and goes out with tools to retrieve collectors. Alternatively if we don't wanna be creative stow it at the ISS until the next shuttle comes up to fit ISS structural components. <br /><br />Simplified? May be, but my point there are ALWAYS options if we open our eyes. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Again, the best thing I can see about any of this is that the trash can landed in the right desert at less than 200 miles per hour - and it is a very big solar system. <br /><br />About the "should have would have could have" aspect, I am a big believer for putting a lot of energy, time, and thought into a "plan b" but not for the mission to collect "solar particles," which but to demonstrate some pretty good technology at work.<br /><br />Again, the science survey mission was a wasted effort. If you want to see the sun's composition, walk to Florida beaches between hurricanes and study the other side of a prisim. But, the rocket science to launch a vehicle into interplanetary space and have the trash can come down in the right desert in the right nation in the right hemisphere on the right planet - that truly is rocket science at its best. <br /><br />Sometimes, what is not important is necessarily the result of the effort, but the spirit of the effort. I only h

 

[mikejz]

Of course Nasa could of also just used a progress and modify it for the job.

 

[najab]

><i>The fact is you don't want believe it can be done cheaply. Well it can.</i><p>I believe it would have been impossible to design the mission to include retrieval at ISS and still stay under the $299 million dollar price tag - as it was, Genesis cost $264 million. We can safely assume that helicopter catch was responsible for only a small amount of that cost - let's say $10 million for the parachute system and associated electronics and testing - which means that we would have at most $50 million to design, test and implement our ISS retrieval plan.<p>Ain't gonna happen.<p>Just the cost of sending the astronaut out to retrieve the collectors will eat a significant portion of that. We still need a larger launch vehicle since the spacecraft will be significantly bigger: Genesis discarded the propulsion and guidance bus just before entry, we have to keep it attached so we can manouver after each aerobraking pass, hence the heatshield would have to be bigger and heavier. And we <i>still</i> need more propellant at launch to brake the spacecraft into it's initial capture orbit. Of course, we could do aero<i>capture</i>, but this would, again, require a heavier heat shield - plus the cost of developing this never-before-used technique would no doubt have driven up the mission cost once again. Plus, we haven't yet added autonomous rendezvous capability to the probe.</p></p></p>

 

[najab]

><i>Of course Nasa could of also just used a progress and modify it for the job.</i><p>I don't know if you're being serious or not, but I don't believe that there is a booster big enough to get a Progress out to the Earth-Moon L1 point.</p>

 

[ew72]

$299,000,000 - 264,000,000 = $35,000,000. Well within the bribe constraints to get a ride with the Russians. Put me in a space suit with a U.S. government donation of $35,000,000 to the Russians and I'd be glad to swim outside to lasso the passing trash can. If not me, then Dennis Tito.

 

[mikejz]

Not really, but i don't see why it could not be done--replace the weight that was set aside for cargo with added propellent. I really doubt it myself, but it should atleast have the numbers run on it. <br /><br />On the otherhand, I think that fact that this was a independent mission was a waste, after all there are a good number of missions that do gravity assists that could of piggybacked the sample collection. I also don't see why stardust could not of carried both payloads. <br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>I also don't see why stardust could not of carried both payloads. </i><p>Simple, they weren't going the same place.</p>

 

[mikejz]

Solar wind is solar wind, isn't it?

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>The fact is you don't want believe it can be done cheaply. Well it can. You've exaggerated the costs/procedures.</i><br /><br />Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />All of these non-existent capabilities, though theoretically possible, are not going to be had "cheaply," notwithstanding your hand waving assertions. Back here in the real world, there's no way Congress would fund such an endeavor just to retrieve solar wind samples, even if there was some vague application down the line to Mars sample return.

 

[rybanis]

Indeed. Some people seem to think we can just go up there and do all this stuff. Not yet! Not for a long time. Space isn't Star Wars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ew72]

Actually, it <i>IS</i> Star Wars. Just ask my friends over at the National Reconnaissance Office who know my talents, knowledge, and skill who won't dare hire me, if only because I have such little political sense to restrain my Zell Miller truths - perhaps I am the Republican version of Zell Miller, knowing full well that NASA is a jobs program, not an exploration mission. Many of the people who say "well, for <i>ONLY</i> a few more trillion dollars, we could do this or that. <br /><br />Yeah. Most of them aren't U.S. Taxpayers who have to fund all of this human progress.<br /><br />Space IS Star Wars. But, it's not Star Trek. Not sure if it will ever be. We can force human evolution by cosmetic advances for the next 1,000 years, but at best, we'll be the same humans we are today, just the same as at the core, we're the same humans that we were 1,000 years ago.<br /><br />Earth spins around the sun like clockwork every 365.2425 days, so we really are "spaceship Earth." The whole solar system is on the move along with the Heliosphere with the "Local Group," bobbing up and down in a way that when combined with the galaxy that rotates every 200,000 years, makes our combined motion look like a sine wave. And within the Milky way, we are in a peperonni slice within a meatball, called the Solar System, that is just an angled Pepperoni slice on the big pizza, which is just one of billions of pizzas of creation. <br /><br />My friends, no need to dream of being space travelers. We already are. <br /><br />All of us.<br />

 

[Leovinus]

And the ISS isn't a Starbase from Star Trek. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[anoolios]

There is an audio conference recording with Genesis team from earlier today on the NASA website: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/genesis/ <br /><br />I just started listening to it, sounds like it was recorded pre-canister opening (I don't know if the canister has been opened yet or not). <br />

 

[yruc]

To the people that believe a orbit insertion would have been better. No. The costs would have tripple or more. Look at Cassini. It is as big as a school bus and it had to break for 96 minutes in order to orbit Saturn. This cost a lot of money for the propellent. So the probe would have had to go from the size of a sled, to the size of a school bus. Which also would have increased the launch costs. etc etc..

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. <br /><br />All of these non-existent capabilities, though theoretically possible, are not going to be had "cheaply," notwithstanding your hand waving assertions. Back here in the real world, there's no way Congress would fund such an endeavor just to retrieve solar wind samples, even if there was some vague application down the line to Mars sample return. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And you and several others on here don't know how to think outside the box and try something new. Everything is impossible to you. Can't be done, too expensive, blah, blah, blah... Btw, you didn't answer my question on how much do you think it'll cost to go back to the moon??<br /><br />My point was trying *new* things is a MUST if we are to learn how to operate in space/moon/mars etc. It could have been a learning experience with the added bonus of doing a little science along the way (analysing solar particles) and one that could come relatively cheaply (even at $35 mil) compared to a demonstration mission devoted to learning just one technique.<br /><br />Obviously, its too late now and we've got what we've got. But IMO that's the way we should be thinking so we can increase our capabilities - otherwise the cost will be forever high.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Just the cost of sending the astronaut out to retrieve the collectors will eat a significant portion of that. We still need a larger launch vehicle since the spacecraft will be significantly bigger: Genesis discarded the propulsion and guidance bus just before entry, we have to keep it attached so we can manouver after each aerobraking pass, hence the heatshield would have to be bigger and heavier. And we still need more propellant at launch to brake the spacecraft into it's initial capture orbit. Of course, we could do aerocapture, but this would, again, require a heavier heat shield - plus the cost of developing this never-before-used technique would no doubt have driven up the mission cost once again. Plus, we haven't yet added autonomous rendezvous capability to the probe. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I'm learning. Perhaps you're right najaB.<br /><br />But again my point is we should try new things and try to do it cheaper, if nothing else it would be an investment in technical-know-how and capabilities for the future of this *new vision for exploration*.<br /><br />To say its gonna cost $1 Zillion to do this and another $ 5 zillion to do that and it can never be done cheaper, is not trying to do better, its just accepting the current state of art and ensuring things stay that way - forever expensive. Thank goodness for private industry!!<br /><br />I'm not knocking NASA (I kinda like O'Keefe) coz they are trying new things now. But I mean look at the ISS, what's its purpose, if not to help us learn how to operate in space??<br /><br />And why don't we redirect funding (perhaps private industry will eventually) to developing basic refuelable space tugs to capture things and move them about in orbit, minimising the need for additional equipment on an incoming solar probe. Wouldn't systems like this come in useful in future?<br /><br />Anyway, I'm not saying its easy, I

 

[najab]

><i>To say its gonna cost $1 Zillion to do this and another $ 5 zillion to do that and it can never be done cheaper, is not trying to do better, its just accepting the current state of art and ensuring things stay that way - forever expensive.</i><p>Actually, that is the exact purpose of the Discovery missions. They are low-cost, high-risk missions intended to push the envelope and get stuff done for a lot less than people are used to. 15 years ago, if you had asked how much it would cost to recover samples of the Solar wind, people would answer $1-2billion without hesitation. Genesis <i>almost</i> got it done for under $300 million.<p>Unfortunately, you can only innovate so far, then the laws of physics and state of the technology start to limit what you can do. There was <b>no possible way</b> that they could have returned the samples to the ISS for under $300 million. If they had spent the $500-600 million that it would take, then another Discovery-class mission would have had to be cancelled: NEAR perhaps?</p></p>

 

[dreada5]

Again may be you right najaB, but I think if you asked the private industry they'd say the innovation limit hasn't been reached yet and they'd find a way to get it done with $300 million.<br /><br />In any case a Genesis-ISS mission would have been much easier if we had already started to make the small investments in LEO infrastructure. IMHO that should be the way forward for the future.

 

[toymaker]

Just read a comment on the Genesis mission on Spacedaily by Jeffrey F. Bell <br />I was disgusted by the amount of hatred towards Zubrin he managed to put into the text. Oh and conclusion-because the Genesis failed there will be no manned missions to Mars, no sample return missions until we prove Mars is lifeless(that can't be done of course). Very hateful article...Why do they put such articles online. Constructive criticism is ok, but if I would see such statements on forum I would consider such a person a simple troll...

 

[Leovinus]

<i>The remains of the Genesis capsule is examined after it crashed Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2004, in Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The space capsule, containing particles of solar wind, was supposed have been snatched from the sky by a helicopter before hitting the ground. But the parachutes failed to deploy. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac, pool)</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Scientists Salvage Some Genesis Materials <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Thats certainly some good news. Fingers Xed that more is to follow.<br /><br />As a side note, i wonder what those cosmic particles look like, would it be like the dust that builds up on window sills and such? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[backspace]

Jeffrey Bell is on a list of people I would like to push down a flight of stairs. Those stairs being Cheops.<br /><br />Off-Topic perhaps, but I am curious... What happened to the main spacecraft bus? does it re-enter, orbit, what? I find it hard to believe that nobody put additional science payloads on the main bus. Perhaps some observations from earth orbit, etc?