Well, I must say that I am a bit dissapointed but all I can say is that at least we're doing something/going somewhere... What if the resources the moon has promised weren't really there in the abundance we thought? Going to an asteroid may actually make sense in the fact that the ore and minerals are right there in front of us and in great dense quantities. Like choosing the difference between searching for the needles in the haystack vs just grabbing the box of needles. Also, I just thought about this, the asteroids that are to be the likely targets are MUCH farther away from Earth than the Moon. So, while all the other nations are building craft solely for moon purposes, we'll be silently forging ahead getting our craft deep-space rated and learning what it takes to step out a little farther every time we have an asteroid mission. Everyone see's madness in not going to the moon, but I think I'm seeing the method and the purpose behind it. Then again, I could be WAY out in left field on this tangent but, all we're doing here is speculating on the unknowns. Whatever the decision is, let everybody get behind that decision and shout out full steam ahead! A direction is better than being stuck in LEO.
- Status
That seems reasonable at first, but it ignores that this is a political process. In the current environment, we have to have enough excitement to get Congress (voters) to support it. Kissing Orions isn't even in that ballpark.KeplersThirdLaw":1rcvb1rw said:
Listen, I love this stuff. If Kissing Orions is what we get, I'll still be glued to the mission and support it every step of the way. But then, NASA had me at Apollo.
The big dream is what it takes to get most people on board. And truly, scientists and engineers need it too. Just read the accounts of people involved in the Moon race and it becomes readily apparent that they pulled that off in less than a decade because it didn't just capture people's minds, it captured their hearts and dreams too.
I attempted to post before but it did not show up so let me try again.
I actaully like this concept. It has a couple of great benefits. First, it is bassed off of existing technology (or rather very close to existing as the Orion is not finished). This means that there is not as much of a wait. This mission could be ready to fly as soon as we have enough Orions built to do it. The second is that because we are using two of them we have a complete doubling of all systems making this method very safe. I would only send 4 people just incase there is a problem and one of the pods needs to be discarded.
We should certainly give it a go. Not only will it give us great data on NEOs (which might be minned some day), but it can also give us some data on a future Mars shot. I think this mission is almost as exciting as a Mars mission itself. If launched it will be the first time humans have ever been beyond Earth's gravity. That is huge!!!
I have posted before that I am a big fan of Aldrin's idea for an interplanetary space ship that can be docked to the ISS when not in use, and used to not only reach Mars some day, but many NEOs in the near future. I still believe that his plan is a great way to go, but I think this idea is actually a step in that direction.
This mission can and should be done!!!
I actaully like this concept. It has a couple of great benefits. First, it is bassed off of existing technology (or rather very close to existing as the Orion is not finished). This means that there is not as much of a wait. This mission could be ready to fly as soon as we have enough Orions built to do it. The second is that because we are using two of them we have a complete doubling of all systems making this method very safe. I would only send 4 people just incase there is a problem and one of the pods needs to be discarded.
We should certainly give it a go. Not only will it give us great data on NEOs (which might be minned some day), but it can also give us some data on a future Mars shot. I think this mission is almost as exciting as a Mars mission itself. If launched it will be the first time humans have ever been beyond Earth's gravity. That is huge!!!
I have posted before that I am a big fan of Aldrin's idea for an interplanetary space ship that can be docked to the ISS when not in use, and used to not only reach Mars some day, but many NEOs in the near future. I still believe that his plan is a great way to go, but I think this idea is actually a step in that direction.
This mission can and should be done!!!
WillCarney":280n53q9 said:
For the record, while Hubble has been fitted with a docking collar, there are absolutly no plans even on the drawing board , let alone funding inclinations, as to what to do with Hubble when it retires. It's to far down the road yet. Deorbiting used satalites, spacecraft, and even space stations like Skylab and Mir is the current mentality of keeping space free of hazards or to avoid a natural orbital decay that may threaten an inhabited area.
If Hubble can be deorbited with launched rocket assitance then it can be boosted in orbit to a much higher orbit where it can be kept for preservation for a space musem . It can stay there in a high Earth orbit HEO not LEO for decades. Space tourism will develop over time and Hubble is an icon of astronomical exploration.
John Lewis from Uni of Arizona has been advocating the exploration and mining of asteroids for many years. Read his excellent book "Mining the Sky".
With his help I prepared an article on this topic for Space.com in 1999:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... ugust.html
It is great to see that these missions are being seriously considered as they have scientific and practical outcomes. And they avoid the danger of negotiating the gravity wells of the Moon or Mars.
Michael Paine
With his help I prepared an article on this topic for Space.com in 1999:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... ugust.html
It is great to see that these missions are being seriously considered as they have scientific and practical outcomes. And they avoid the danger of negotiating the gravity wells of the Moon or Mars.
Michael Paine
I think visiting NEO's are a great mission. Anything out of LEO. It can test Orion's long term capabilities, returning to Earth from outside of LEO velocities, learn more about these asteroids, and probably the most important things: 1) Get foot prints and fingerprints on another celestial body. This pays untold dividends in both public support (you need eye-catching things sometimes, rather than just another visit to the ISS). Not like landing on the moon, but far better than puttering around LEO. I think it'd get NASA some much needed interest.
2) Allow close up study of asteroids, and get important data on them in case we have to visit one that's on a collision course with Earth. Perhaps some technologies can be tried out like placing an Ion engine on it to see if you can slowly nudge it. Try explosives, or try moving it with Orion's propulsion. Some real world data that could be used in the future to save us from a cataclysmic collision.
2) Allow close up study of asteroids, and get important data on them in case we have to visit one that's on a collision course with Earth. Perhaps some technologies can be tried out like placing an Ion engine on it to see if you can slowly nudge it. Try explosives, or try moving it with Orion's propulsion. Some real world data that could be used in the future to save us from a cataclysmic collision.
The only resource that you can get from off-world that would make a profit to bring it back is helium-3. Anything else wouldn't pay for itself, not gold, not titanium, nothing else.
Anything that you can get in LEO without a launch is worth at least it's cost to LEO (4k$/kg - 50k$/kg).Actual_Rocket_Scientist":9eaptota said:
I think Orion with J-2X, Sundancer, some decent airlock (Node-1 and PMA something) and electric propulsion block is the way to go. Maybe plug in some robotic manipulator on connecting module for some applications.
I guess you could run 1x VF-200 per 2x SAFE-400 (100 kWe) or a comparable area of SLASR (about 700 m2, 700 kg in Earth orbit) with a small, let's say 5 - 10t of argon fuel tank. Assuming 60t dry mass, 5t of argon and average Isp of 15000s, dV(5t fuel) = 12 km/s, dV(10t fuel) = 23 km/s and burn time t(5t fuel) = about 25 years. Adding more engines can improve this picture and note that Isp can range from 5000s to 30000s (lower Isp = more thrust, shorter burn time), depending on the mission profile. I think that three engines would be best option for asteroid tugging experiments. They would burn 5t of fuel for about 8,5 years at Isp 15000s or about 344 days, dV=4km/s at Isp 5000s.
All of this is only a couple of years from flight readiness and some (SAFE-400 -> Liquid Metal Stirling, Free Piston Stirling) will get improved by that time.
People will need to go to NEOs at some point, because of light speed communication constraints. Servicing satellites in GSO or at libration points also comes to mind. Just park non earth bound parts at ISS/fuel depot when finished, no need for littering.
I remember hearing about the whole asteroid mission thing in the earlier stages of Orion planning. Indeed, nothing new. And there is certainly nothing wrong with going to an asteroid.
What is wrong is killing the vision.
The hard reality is that this mentality is self-defeating. No way people are getting behind a "dream" this small. And that is my problem...this smells of death.
The more I mull this over, the closer I get to advocating pulling the plug on NASA's manned program. They still seem to have plenty of vision for unmanned projects...let them and their partners do what they do well. Perhaps we really should let private enterprise carry the torch of manned space exploration. I've never been of this opinion, and I'm not quite there just yet, but it is starting to make some sense.
Yeah...pretty sad.
What is wrong is killing the vision.
The hard reality is that this mentality is self-defeating. No way people are getting behind a "dream" this small. And that is my problem...this smells of death.
The more I mull this over, the closer I get to advocating pulling the plug on NASA's manned program. They still seem to have plenty of vision for unmanned projects...let them and their partners do what they do well. Perhaps we really should let private enterprise carry the torch of manned space exploration. I've never been of this opinion, and I'm not quite there just yet, but it is starting to make some sense.
Yeah...pretty sad.
EarthlingX":bj182q1q said:
If the intention is to keep it in space which it is not. The astronaut was sent up to bring back space riches, not keep it himself.
tplank":1mwharxk said:
How is it killing the vision?
Why won't people get behind it? Who are these people who need to get behind it? If it takes humanity to a new destination, ghow is this a small vision? If it is what can be afforded, why complain?
Great idea. The US will stop spending people into space altogether, except as space tourists. And Yyu complain that asteroid missions "kill the vision"!
Private enterprise of itself will never fund space exploration until there is a profit motive. Piriavet enterprise has never put anyone into space nwithout the expectation of someone else paying for it.
Only if you want to destroy the US human spaceflight program.
Jon
Booban":23pl3fxw said:
Sure, but when (if) you start making fuel in space all sorts of missions become cheaper. When (if) you start making solar collectors, energy gets cheaper. When (if) you start making (growing) things with space based industry, less need for launches. Then it's probably time to drop something planet side, it will make a profit, until then, you make a profit in space.
Here's a thought about such a mission: If you have a ship, that can get in LEO in one piece, refuel it (50 k$/kg for COTS gives you a little room to breathe), tinker a bit with engines to allow them better Isp in vacuum, or not, and you have aproximately 9,5 km/s of dV to fly around. Mars is about 6 km/s from LEO, for comparison.
Here's another: How much would someone who spent $ billion or two on a satellite be willing to pay for refueling which would double his satellite mission time ?
What astronauts would ever want to tool around the solar system in two crappy, docked space capsules? I would be seriously ticked off if my government asked me to fly from Boston to Los Angeles in something that small... there is no way I would be pleased about having to fly in one of those things to an asteroid. Great, you mean instead of sending someone out in a cramped room with a slanted roof, you're going to send twice as many people out in two rooms with slanted roofs. Where do I sign up?
Why would you ever waste the logistics of two spacecraft designed to reenter the atmposhere if you don't also doc them to some type of spacehab? The Orion is not really meant to be the sole living quarters, as it is meant to be the reentry vehicle of some larger configuration.
Why would you ever waste the logistics of two spacecraft designed to reenter the atmposhere if you don't also doc them to some type of spacehab? The Orion is not really meant to be the sole living quarters, as it is meant to be the reentry vehicle of some larger configuration.
Man,
I dont know what the scientific justifications are,
but to reach out and touch an asteroid. I would spend a few months in a cramped capsule for that.
Unfortunately there would literally be millions of volunteers before me. That is assuming only one in a thousand out of six billion.
I dont know what the scientific justifications are,
but to reach out and touch an asteroid. I would spend a few months in a cramped capsule for that.
Unfortunately there would literally be millions of volunteers before me. That is assuming only one in a thousand out of six billion.
Nothing! Since most sats have enough fuel for the expected 10 year life span. You can’t justify spending new money, on 10 year old electronics. Memory wears. Would you spend $100 dollars to put a new hard drive into your 10 year computer?
As to all the riches just waiting for us on the Moon…
Show me the numbers where it makes sense.
The government doesn’t get involved with mining ventures.
The government doesn’t get involved with manufacturing ventures.
It’s up to the private sector to do the job. I don’t care how much water is on the Moon, there is no profit. Show me any formula where you can make a profit! Iron, platinum, gold, diamonds, I don’t care what you mine, show me the profit.
Suppose there is no ice on the Moon. What does that do to your big plans?
But the political stunt of an asteroid mission is hard to resist.
samkent":u595qkvc said:
I have stated earlier there is nothing in space that we don't have here on Earth. Well, other than helium3. That's the only thing I know of worth mining on the moon. Even with that, do we yet have a market for he3?
The asteroid mission is still worthwhile, and so is going to the moon, but what started it all was the possibility of life on Mars. That's the golden ring for which we search. No matter the science, in the end that search is whats going to steer us. LOL that and the lack of money.
Through a complete and utter lack of any semblance of public relations ability. I realize scientists do not tend to think like this: I’m married to one. Our support of Space exploration is pathetic because most people look at the picture of kissing Orions and never get past my initial reaction that it is bone-crushingly depressing.JonClarke":jfpd9olq said:
I’m tempted not to respond to these questions as the answers are obvious to the most casual of observers. Um, you need the taxpayers behind it last time I checked. If Kissing Orions gets us somewhere great, that is how you sell it. That picture should never have seen the light of day outside of NASA.
So are you telling me we are still sending people to space? Looks like we will be sending them on Soyuz for quite a while. Right...I’m just a complainer. I’m pretty angry about the lack of energy policy over the last forty years too. I suppose when I point out that failure in leadership, I’m just whining.
Unfortunately, Jon, sometimes the truth is just ugly.
Of course not. That is why I support NASA. But at some point blind support of poor leadership is just fandom. I have nothing but respect for the engineers and scientists at NASA. This is a failure at the top. But failure none the less.
Could hardly be more effective at killing it than Kissing Orions. And that money could be spent by the real visionaries in the robotic arena.
I actually think asteroid missions are exactly the right thing. It could be sold in an exciting way. It could be the next great thing. But these people would have trouble selling ice water to people lost in the desert. They need to hire a good PR firm before the entire budget disappears into a puff of healthcare reform financial necessity smoke.
From what I'm seeing these days, maybe the way to space is by making a reality TV show....Seems they have them for everything else....
Rae
Rae
tplank":34rmvljx said:
It is just a proposal at this stage. Why do you need a PR ability?
What makes you assume that "most people" have the same reaction as you?
The answers are not obvious, which is why I am asking you.
So you don't like a picture of two docked Orions,. come up with a risible put down ("kissing Orions") and on that basis of that think the tax payers won't support it? What evidence do you have that this is the case?
Yes you are whining, with nothing concrete yet to suggest. The US is putting people into space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. So what if for the next few years it will be on Soyuz? There still be be an active US human spaceflight program and one doing great work.
What ugly truth are you referring to?
In your opinion. What evidence do you have to support it? How is it failure at the top? How can you "respect for the engineers and scientists at NASA" but ridcule a idea the same scientists and engineers propose? Or is it just the fact you don't like the picture?
In your view. So far you have produced no evidence,. so it is just your unsubstantiated opinion. I ask again, what evidence do you have that an innovative and low cost Orion mission to NEAs will kill the space program?
Is this your real agenda? Let's not explore space directly but indirectly with "robots"?
You are inconsistent here. On one hand you say you are in favour of asteroid missions on the other hand you oppose a proposal to do one? You can't have it both ways.
Gratuious slander that is well off target.
Why do you want to spend PR money on something that is just a proposal at this stage? This isn't a mass marketing campaign, this is one option to be considered. Once a committment is made to do this then you get the PR people out.
If you want to talk about heathcare, do so in the Open Forum, NOT here.
Jon
This weekend in the Air and Space Museum I stood in awe staring at the Apollo and Soyuz vehicles attached by the docking tunnel. Standing that close I was surprised by how large the two were together. I think we have all been spoiled by the size of the shuttle, but it will be a long time before we see something that large doing anything other than LEO missions.
Two Orions and a similarity docking device would be a formidable spacecraft. I looked in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft and realized just how little space there was inside, but men spent weeks in all of those crafts. We sometimes forget that astronauts are used to cramped spaces and have the heart to endure anything just for the joy of flying.
I'm not saying Orion's design would be my first choice, but for now it looks like that's all we are going to get. We might as well make the best of what we have.
Two Orions and a similarity docking device would be a formidable spacecraft. I looked in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft and realized just how little space there was inside, but men spent weeks in all of those crafts. We sometimes forget that astronauts are used to cramped spaces and have the heart to endure anything just for the joy of flying.
I'm not saying Orion's design would be my first choice, but for now it looks like that's all we are going to get. We might as well make the best of what we have.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
Strange multi-planet system proves not all hot Jupiter exoplanets are lonely giants- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Unknown Laws of Physics, black holes and dark energies explained, in the Cosmic Balance
- Started by jhixon
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
SpaceX launching Starship Flight 7 today: Watch it live
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram