scottb50":2jkvx631 said:
Wrong.
Being in Mars orbit makes Deimos and Phobos more accessible, not harder to reach.
In terms of delta V, there two of the easiest bodies to reach in the solar system.
- Status
Wrong.
Being in Mars orbit makes Deimos and Phobos more accessible, not harder to reach.
In terms of delta V, there two of the easiest bodies to reach in the solar system.
EarthlingX":1z6txa4m said:
You disagree that Phobos and Deimos are easier to reach than most near earth asteroids?
They are easier to reach. Lower delta V. Launch windows every ~two years.
Yuri_Armstrong":34qnp83x said:
It is quite common to send stuff up to I.S.S. to repair life support. This would also be doable with a moon base.
Not doable with asteroids, or Mars, Phobos or Deimos.
Yuri_Armstrong":2menonlt said:
Yup. Because Deimos and Phobos are moons, and Luna is a moon, that should make Paul Spudis and other lunar advocates happy.
They all can be reached in a few days time. Launch windows open for all of them each two weeks. They all show good evidence of massive deposits of water ice.
Wait a minute...
Those things are only true of Luna.
The point was, that we need to mature our space technology in these areas. Prove it all out with a moon base, and regular trips there, then move out into the solar system.Yuri_Armstrong":13mpvxvr said:
I remember Apollo 13. The whole world was on edge about the astronauts fate, not just Americans. If we had a similar failure going to Mars, it could be another decades long setback, because astronauts would die. If we are serious about exploring, "failure is not an option" (NASA motto during Apollo).
Yes, we must take the appropriate steps to ensure the survival of not only the astronauts but also the exploration program. If Apollo 13 killed the astronauts I'm afriad the rest of the flights may have been cancelled. This is why sending an unmanned rescue ship ahead of the manned ship would be a good idea. Of course, it will be quite costly. NASA may decide to forgo an unmanned rescue ship and just try to do their best to make sure nothing bad happens. We'll see.
rockett":fzm8n7ce said:
Well, everyone is going to die, that still seems to be a given, so what you do until that time is pretty much up to you. Failure is not a deterrent, it's a learning experience.
Too many years in simulators.
scottb50":27btbuw6 said:
Lunar supplied propellent depots at EML1 and LEO would give us the ability to go other places.
The moon would enable us to visit asteroids.
It is also vastly more affordable.
scottb50":27btbuw6 said:
No, once you're in LEO you need propellent to go elsewhere. This is where the moon can help.
scottb50":27btbuw6 said:
Too many years in simulators gives the mistaken impression of unlimited money and unlimited political capital. We have neither money to burn, nor is an astronaut death something politicians shrug off with a flick of the shoulders.
One destination is doable and can give give us less expensive space transportation.
The other destination is insanely expensive and dangerous and gives us flags and footprints.
Most, but not all.HopDavid":3koy5cef said:
I don't have 50 years to wait for a lunar base to start making propellant for further out. No more promises to deliver dreams with no money for it, and no intention or focus to provide it.
What would be chances for a lunar base crew, if something goes wrong ? Pretty slimmer than for one which can get back by using just it's ship's RCS engines, i think.
There will be a lots of water under the bridge until propellant from Moon gets cheaper than propellant launched from Earth. You need to bring a lot of mass to lunar surface before that happens. Why wait ? Buy propellant in LEO.
EarthlingX":70b9xbmu said:
Low delta V launch opportunities for an NEO occur very rarely. Say we do go to one in the near future. It's likely another very low delta V launch window to the same body won't occur for another 40 or 50 years.
So there is no opportunity for additional missions to build on the first.
Another flags and footprints mission. As a taxpayer, I'm very much against such a waste of money.
EarthlingX":70b9xbmu said:
Hate to break it to you, but manned trips to asteroids are also likely to be underfunded. This goal will be off the radar screen for most congressmen. There will be no intention or focus.
If your dreams go beyond just planting a flag, skipping the moon won't shorten your wait. Rather it will increase the wait by many decades, if not centuries.
So, what would be your estimate for amount of money needed for a lunar base which could be able to provide propellant for further out ? Any idea about time-frame ?
Compare that to an asteroid mission, which can fly as soon as there are propellant depots in the LEO.
Soyuz can do lunar orbit, just a bit more fuel, and it can go much further. It is also compatible with ISS-like modules, like ATV or HTV, add just a bigger tank, and go. ATV transfers propellant, compatible with Russian tech, and has automatic docking. Are you saying USA can't do this ?
There is also Almaz, and so on. Why wait ?
About asteroids and how many are close :
neo.jpl.nasa.gov : Near-Earth Asteroid Discovery Statistics
There is no need to go to the same asteroid more than once, unless it is something very special, and currently very little is known about them, so each of them is something special. A lot of boots and flags, enough for everybody and then some.
It is also not going over basic steps, like Moon or Mars mission is. Humanity has to learn to live in the space, and off the space, that's the point. Landing - later.
Asteroid ISRU can be done robotically, after being installed by the visiting crew, or move it in a safe lunar orbit, and do processing there. Shouldn't be such a big deal for some small rock, let say 5 m or so, very likely better done robotically in such case.
Compare that to an asteroid mission, which can fly as soon as there are propellant depots in the LEO.
Soyuz can do lunar orbit, just a bit more fuel, and it can go much further. It is also compatible with ISS-like modules, like ATV or HTV, add just a bigger tank, and go. ATV transfers propellant, compatible with Russian tech, and has automatic docking. Are you saying USA can't do this ?
There is also Almaz, and so on. Why wait ?
About asteroids and how many are close :
neo.jpl.nasa.gov : Near-Earth Asteroid Discovery Statistics
There is no need to go to the same asteroid more than once, unless it is something very special, and currently very little is known about them, so each of them is something special. A lot of boots and flags, enough for everybody and then some.
It is also not going over basic steps, like Moon or Mars mission is. Humanity has to learn to live in the space, and off the space, that's the point. Landing - later.
Asteroid ISRU can be done robotically, after being installed by the visiting crew, or move it in a safe lunar orbit, and do processing there. Shouldn't be such a big deal for some small rock, let say 5 m or so, very likely better done robotically in such case.
About 35 billion according to:EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
CSIS: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Costs of an International Lunar Base
http://csis.org/publication/costs-international-lunar-base
And those are? I could find anybody with hard numbers...EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
No, the US has nothing that can, as of today. Maybe Orion will be able to (if it's ever finished, considering all the political wrangling), we have only paper studies and wild speculation at this point that says it can.EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
Few launch windows:EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
Once we have "done it", public and political support will quickly fade and it will go the way of Apollo. There is simply way to many years between acceptable launch windows. That doesn't lead to a sustainable space exploration architecture.EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
Can't learn to live on a rock you can only "play tag" with.EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
And what would you ISRU? We think we know what's there, but as for anything we can really immediately use (water), we only have 1 confirmed case of, and that's in the belt.EarthlingX":cckstxzd said:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/water-ice-on-asteroid-100428.html
EarthlingX":30o6yh6z said:
Flag and footprints sortie mission vs mining base? This isn't comparing apples to oranges. It's grapes to watermelons.
If it's a scientific sortie mission, the moon is as worthwhile as an NEO. The accumulated layers of ice at the poles could contain a history of our solar system just as the layers in the fossil record contain a history of life on earth. Much is still unknown about the moon.
Sortie asteroid mission vs lunar sortie mission: My guesstimate is that asteroid sortie would be 30 times as expensive. A lunar sortie mission could be done in 1/10 of the time.
Lunar mining base vs asteroid mining base: My guesstimate: asteroid mining base is 100 times as expensive. Rarity of NEO launch windows would very much increase the time it takes to build such a base. It would probably take 200 times longer than a lunar mining base.
But since you asked, I will compare grapes to watermelons.
Asteroid sortie mission vs lunar mining base: My guesstimate is lunar mining base would be twice as expensive as asteroid flags and footprints.
Asteroid mining base vs lunar sortie: 6000 times as expensive.
EarthlingX":30o6yh6z said:
Sans lunar base, LEO depots will be supplied by disposable rockets. With a lunar mining base, LEO depots could be supplied with reusable vehicles. Delta V from earth's surface to LEO is 10 km/sec. Delta V from lunar surface to LEO is 3.2 km/sec.
A viable propellent depot architecture also requires a high flight rate. Rare launch windows wouldn't provide this rate. More frequent lunar launch windows could.
EarthlingX":30o6yh6z said:
Sure, just throw tons of money at it and it can be done. This money could be much better spent on other things.
EarthlingX":30o6yh6z said:
In my opinion No flags and footprints missions are worth the expense of human space flight. Not the moon, mars, and certainly not multiple flags on several asteroids. If we're going, we should be going to stay. If we're not leaving reusable infrastructure, just cancel human space flight.
EarthlingX":30o6yh6z said:
You mentioned Almaz. Can you tell me what resources Almaz could provide? So far as I know, useable ore deposits remain unknown.
If you invest in sending any specific mining equipment to Almaz, it's quite likely the ore deposits the equipment's designed for don't exist. The mining equipment would be money flushed down the toilet.
As I've said numerous times, asteroid mining should be preceded with prospecting. To date there been virtually no asteroid prospecting done.
Further, hard rock mining is difficult. Teleoperated mining robots are still a technology in it's infancy. Fully autonomous NEO mining robots don't exist.
Teleoperating robots on NEOs suffers a greater light lag. You keep on ignoring this point. Ignoring it won't make this problem go away. I will keep on bringing it up.
EarthlingX":30o6yh6z said:
Hope you don't plan to mine propellents from this asteroid. Moving an NEO to such an orbit would take more hydrogen and oxygen mass than the asteroid mass.
I think from the context (though he didn't specify) he meant the old Russian Almaz space station:HopDavid":ithdzno4 said:
From Russian Space...
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz.html
From astronautix.com...
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/almaz.htm
rockett":e1xafbdg said:I think from the context (though he didn't specify) he meant the old Russian Almaz space station:HopDavid":e1xafbdg said:
From Russian Space...
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz.html
From astronautix.com...
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/almaz.htm
My bad. I had thought Almaz was the name of an NEO with a low delta V launch window.
Another reason for establishing bases on the moon before venturing further out. We can mine the moon without concern for accidentally damaging a potential eco-system. It will probably take decades to determine if life exists on Mars and if it does what impact human activity would have on said life. Then it will take more decades to fight the inevitable legal battle over whether we have the right to interfere with the natural evolution of Mars. I think it is silly to pose such objections but I know there are those out there who would protest vigorously our colonizing Mars if any life exists there.
As for the moon, since it is not possible for anything that fits our concept of life to be there already no one can make a supportable argument that colonization by humans will interfere with an ecosystem. We can cut and drill and dig til the moon gives up her riches without worrying about putting it back the way it was.
As for the moon, since it is not possible for anything that fits our concept of life to be there already no one can make a supportable argument that colonization by humans will interfere with an ecosystem. We can cut and drill and dig til the moon gives up her riches without worrying about putting it back the way it was.
delta-V is not a magic incantation that will yeild its power to the keenly gifted invoker. Invoking its holy tones will not save us nor will it endow us with capabilities we do not own. Going to asteroids or Mars is not simply a matter of delta-V but uniquely a matter of mass.
Consider the other equally holy deltas that have not been invoked:
- delta-t (time, and lots of it: months and years) (astronaut salaries while in space are not cheap, time away is not trivial)
- delta-yum (food, and lots of it),
- delta-H20 (water, and lots of it),
- delta-kW (power, and lots of it),
- delta-WC (poo, and lots of it),
- delta-HMO (At least one MD/surgeon/psych must be on the mission).
- delta-Murphy (The toilet broke, again, and parts won't catch up to us until next year!)
- delta-Titanic (Big ship, big target, lots of expensive, heavy shielding)
- delta-F (F=ma; a=delta-V; m=massive quantities of ship and gear; F=the ridiculous amount of force/energy required to move and stop that hulking tub!).
Even if delta-V were cheap, it does not necessarily mean the other delta values are (and there are many!). The trip to an asteroid or Mars is really much more expensive when considering all of the other deltas and more importantly the cumulative mass. The cost is really much higher than any of the posts in this forum have even ventured. A 3,000 ton spacecraft and a 4,000 lb spacecraft will have the same delta-V, but the mass is what throws the equation into high gear! The force required is what will drain your bank account!
If we expect action, we need to do it within budget and we need to do it now. Not in 15 years. Not in twenty.
Here is a laundry list that should come first:
1. We need more servicable, affordable orbital outposts in LEO that provide more utility and more independance.
2. We need to reduce launch costs dramatically. Like, right now!
3. We must get the orbits cleaned up (no it is not impossible, we just need to pass international laws to allow us to charge the providers a clean-up fee legally; the fees will sustain the endeavor if done properly; all future launches must include the international disposal fee that is collectable by any salvaging company once the asset is abandoned).
4. We need to jointly finance a mission with Kaiser or Rio Tinto to explore the Moon's minerology prospects (I trust them more than NASA to know what can and cannot be done there and to do it in an efficient manner).
5. Let's verify the water resources first-hand and get a fuel refinery base or two setup on the moon and use private enterprise to keep the costs down.
6. We should setup an exprimental farm on the moon with 20 foot-tall corn, basketball sized tomatoes, chickens that can really fly, cows that can jump, and bees that can... well... do whatever bees do on the moon.
Dreams of Mars will delay needed advancements... we need to get out there and get dirty... really dirty. Every day. That is the only way we will progress and innovate at a more rapid pace. We have to get in the back-yard to test out our theories before going down the block... and we need to do it on a permanent and sustainable basis! It will require a fundamental change in our thinking:
1. Become self sufficient in space (fuel, air, food, recycling) so people in space do not have to rely on launched resources.
2. Create, utilize, and re-use resources in space; reduce the need for heavy-lift launch services; eliminate the need entirely where possible.
3. Put the scientists and researchers in space (yes, soft-bellied men can survive launch and zero-gee).
4. Put vendors, contractors, and business in space.
5. Put families in space.
6. Establish the 51st state in LEO, and the 52nd state on the Moon (all due respects to the space treaty).
How many of the current priorites for development and planning would change for the better if we made all of those our goal?
How much more could NASA accomplish with all those resources in-place IN SPCACE?
We will not truly be a space-faring nation until the list above IS a reality. Without that list, Mars and asteroids cannot happen in a significant, sustainable, and repeatable way. If you can confidently get to item number five in the list, you will have most of the capabilities needed to go to deep space and more refined because our most precious cargo gave us the need to make it better.
Before reaching beyond the moon, there is plenty we can do to inspire and motivate us in our own back yard that can set the stage for the future in a very practical and sustainable way. We as a people must be the next level of involvement because, without our excitement at the prospects of our own personal involvement, the whole thing will eventually wither and die on the vine of the NASA budget.
Consider the other equally holy deltas that have not been invoked:
- delta-t (time, and lots of it: months and years) (astronaut salaries while in space are not cheap, time away is not trivial)
- delta-yum (food, and lots of it),
- delta-H20 (water, and lots of it),
- delta-kW (power, and lots of it),
- delta-WC (poo, and lots of it),
- delta-HMO (At least one MD/surgeon/psych must be on the mission).
- delta-Murphy (The toilet broke, again, and parts won't catch up to us until next year!)
- delta-Titanic (Big ship, big target, lots of expensive, heavy shielding)
- delta-F (F=ma; a=delta-V; m=massive quantities of ship and gear; F=the ridiculous amount of force/energy required to move and stop that hulking tub!).
Even if delta-V were cheap, it does not necessarily mean the other delta values are (and there are many!). The trip to an asteroid or Mars is really much more expensive when considering all of the other deltas and more importantly the cumulative mass. The cost is really much higher than any of the posts in this forum have even ventured. A 3,000 ton spacecraft and a 4,000 lb spacecraft will have the same delta-V, but the mass is what throws the equation into high gear! The force required is what will drain your bank account!
If we expect action, we need to do it within budget and we need to do it now. Not in 15 years. Not in twenty.
Here is a laundry list that should come first:
1. We need more servicable, affordable orbital outposts in LEO that provide more utility and more independance.
2. We need to reduce launch costs dramatically. Like, right now!
3. We must get the orbits cleaned up (no it is not impossible, we just need to pass international laws to allow us to charge the providers a clean-up fee legally; the fees will sustain the endeavor if done properly; all future launches must include the international disposal fee that is collectable by any salvaging company once the asset is abandoned).
4. We need to jointly finance a mission with Kaiser or Rio Tinto to explore the Moon's minerology prospects (I trust them more than NASA to know what can and cannot be done there and to do it in an efficient manner).
5. Let's verify the water resources first-hand and get a fuel refinery base or two setup on the moon and use private enterprise to keep the costs down.
6. We should setup an exprimental farm on the moon with 20 foot-tall corn, basketball sized tomatoes, chickens that can really fly, cows that can jump, and bees that can... well... do whatever bees do on the moon.
Dreams of Mars will delay needed advancements... we need to get out there and get dirty... really dirty. Every day. That is the only way we will progress and innovate at a more rapid pace. We have to get in the back-yard to test out our theories before going down the block... and we need to do it on a permanent and sustainable basis! It will require a fundamental change in our thinking:
1. Become self sufficient in space (fuel, air, food, recycling) so people in space do not have to rely on launched resources.
2. Create, utilize, and re-use resources in space; reduce the need for heavy-lift launch services; eliminate the need entirely where possible.
3. Put the scientists and researchers in space (yes, soft-bellied men can survive launch and zero-gee).
4. Put vendors, contractors, and business in space.
5. Put families in space.
6. Establish the 51st state in LEO, and the 52nd state on the Moon (all due respects to the space treaty).
How many of the current priorites for development and planning would change for the better if we made all of those our goal?
How much more could NASA accomplish with all those resources in-place IN SPCACE?
We will not truly be a space-faring nation until the list above IS a reality. Without that list, Mars and asteroids cannot happen in a significant, sustainable, and repeatable way. If you can confidently get to item number five in the list, you will have most of the capabilities needed to go to deep space and more refined because our most precious cargo gave us the need to make it better.
Before reaching beyond the moon, there is plenty we can do to inspire and motivate us in our own back yard that can set the stage for the future in a very practical and sustainable way. We as a people must be the next level of involvement because, without our excitement at the prospects of our own personal involvement, the whole thing will eventually wither and die on the vine of the NASA budget.
SFAR, for the most part I agree with your post except this point:
No, no, no, no, no! NO SPACE DOCTORS! The crew number will most likely be 4, what we need are four people with good flying, engineering, and science skills. They will all have some form of medical training as well as aid kits and help from the flight surgeon at mission control. We do not really need a doctor, that is wasting crew space and it brings down morale. Astronauts hate space doctors because they are always prodding, poking, and doing tests on them instead of letting them do their work. And for that matter, especially no pyschologists! I can't think of a more useless position on a Mars mission than psychologist!
SpaceForAReason":1fj2mrv2 said:
No, no, no, no, no! NO SPACE DOCTORS! The crew number will most likely be 4, what we need are four people with good flying, engineering, and science skills. They will all have some form of medical training as well as aid kits and help from the flight surgeon at mission control. We do not really need a doctor, that is wasting crew space and it brings down morale. Astronauts hate space doctors because they are always prodding, poking, and doing tests on them instead of letting them do their work. And for that matter, especially no pyschologists! I can't think of a more useless position on a Mars mission than psychologist!
Why Yuri, do I detect a note of paranoia? Perhaps a trace of schitzophrenia? (Yuri Gagarin_Neil Armstrong) :lol:Yuri_Armstrong":30lbijf3 said:
I think your entire post was dead on! I especially loved the other deltas!SpaceForAReason":2ibcp30d said:
Overall, I think realisticly, most agree with your post, judging from the poll so far, the lunies have it 2 to 1...
What awakening? We all know that NASA has been politicized, that Congress is calling the shots, and the current Administration proposes goals so far out (in more ways than one) that the likelyhood of them being sidelined is very high (and they know that)...EarthlingX":29j64e27 said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram