Nasa going back to apollo tech?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

job1207

Guest
<p>Huh, I was not aware that Europe was going to a resuable vehicle. Why do they think that is less expensive than throw away??? </p><p>http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/081015-tw-future-launcher.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>regarding Mars and Orion, if I am going a long way, I need a back up. If the Mars lander can do that as it did for Apollo 13 that is fine. I guess.&nbsp; I would rather have a back up both ways. It is a long way to Mars. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again, why?&nbsp; The fifth person is not needed in orbit and it is not desirable ofr safety reaons to leave a person by themselves for that length of time.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />So they&nbsp;don't think any risk is significant enough of something happening in the Orion CM to merit another person staying on board?&nbsp; What is this 102 week&nbsp;time span&nbsp;you mentioned?&nbsp; Is that a typo or are you talking about a moonbase or something?&nbsp; Trust me, after following all of the automated and remote control missions i don't doubt NASAs technology in that area and i have the utmost confidence in it.&nbsp; However, i do know that all it takes is one minor slip up in a mission where a crew is put in danger, hurt, or even worse killed; and the whole Orion program is going to come to a crashing halt.&nbsp; Even if there was a problem that occured on the Orion CM while the 4 astronaughts were on the moon, and that problem <strong>couldn't</strong> have been fixed by an astronaught, TPTB in the government would still throw a fit about that extra person not being there.&nbsp; That's the way all this beareaucratic BS works.&nbsp; Sad as it may be, but true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Also, on a side note of my last post.&nbsp; I one time was fortunate enough to have Walter Mondale come speak at one of my classes and he talked about how he now in hindsight supported Gerald Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon.&nbsp; I was so close to asking him at the end of the discussion if he felt the same about his harsh stance on NASA, alas, i chickened out...figured it was a little off topic since the talk was about Watergate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So they&nbsp;don't think any risk is significant enough of something happening in the Orion CM to merit another person staying on board?&nbsp; What is this 102 week&nbsp;time span&nbsp;you mentioned?&nbsp; Is that a typo or are you talking about a moonbase or something?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Thanks for picking that up, it was a typo, it should have been 1-2 weeks.&nbsp; I fixed the originaal post.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Trust me, after following all of the automated and remote control missions i don't doubt NASAs technology in that area and i have the utmost confidence in it.&nbsp; However, i do know that all it takes is one minor slip up in a mission where a crew is put in danger, hurt, or even worse killed; and the whole Orion program is going to come to a crashing halt.&nbsp; Even if there was a problem that occured on the Orion CM while the 4 astronaughts were on the moon, and that problem couldn't have been fixed by an astronaught, TPTB in the government would still throw a fit about that extra person not being there.&nbsp; That's the way all this beareaucratic BS works.&nbsp; Sad as it may be, but true. <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>The questions are:</p><p>What risks&nbsp;does having one person on their own for 1-2 weeks entail?&nbsp;</p><p>What realistic mission-critical&nbsp;faults could one person fix that could not&nbsp;be managed by mission control or an emergency return of the surface crew?</p><p>What are the penalties in terms of consumables of having a person on board for two weeks?&nbsp; </p><p>What payload penalties does this lead to?</p><p>How will the one person manage in the longer term when the surface crews might stay for 1-2 months, or even longer?</p><p>It is all a matter of&nbsp;trades between consequences.</p><p>Nobody wants a tragedy, everyone will be working to avoid one.&nbsp; But can't see why a fatality would lead to the whole program coming to a crashing halt,&nbsp; A hiatus, certainly, while the fault is identified and addressed.&nbsp; But missions will continue.&nbsp; Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia did not bring the US space program to a crashing halt, there is no reason why a lunar fatality would to otherwise.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>Just read Kim Stanley Robinson's Antarctica. It would be great to see something like that on the moon.</p><p>To me&nbsp;people on the moon is the point. Im sure the rocket science is fantastic and of course they are going to build them with the factories and training they currently have. However to my mind the rockets used to get there have very little to do with whether this is a repeat of apollo or something more.</p>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh, I was not aware that Europe was going to a resuable vehicle. Why do they think that is less expensive than throw away??? http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/081015-tw-future-launcher.htmlregarding Mars and Orion, if I am going a long way, I need a back up. If the Mars lander can do that as it did for Apollo 13 that is fine. I guess.&nbsp; I would rather have a back up both ways. It is a long way to Mars. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p><font size="2">The vehicle described in the article would be capable of surviving reentry and landing -- but would not be reusable. A quote from the story:</font></p><p><em><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">"ESA does not plan to develop a reusable re-entry system on the basis of the ATV, but rather an expendable re-entry vehicle," said Marco Caporicci, head of transport and re-entry systems for the ESA Human Spaceflight Directorate.</span></font></font></font></font></em></p><p><font size="2">Looks like they're angling toward something that could provide down-mass from the ISS -- or maybe evolve into a manned spaceflight system.</font></p><p><font size="2">As for having a way to get home if something goes wrong on the way to Mars: there is a long history of human exploration in which there was really no backup plan if something went horribly wrong. I'm thinking of the folks who loaded up their wagons and launched out into the American West. They knew that if the wagons broke down -- or if their horses died -- or if their food went bad -- or if they ran out of water in the middle of the desert -- that they were essentially screwed. But they went anyway. And thank goodness that they did.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
J

job1207

Guest
<p>OK, ESA is not going to be reusable. And it lands in the ocean.&nbsp; </p><p>It is hard to see how anyone could be against a back up system. Mars is a long way away. Using the American West analogy. When folks went by themselves they would often not make it. When they went in caravans, they would lose one or two ( or more ) vehicles, but the caravan would make it.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks for using that analogy.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Going to the Moon is like going from Virginia to Kentucky. Going to Mars is like going from Virginia to California. And going to the Moon is hard in it's own right. &nbsp; </p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is hard to see how anyone could be against a back up system. Mars is a long way away. Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>I don't think anybody is arguing against a back up system.&nbsp; Of course the back up system has not to be effective,and not just token.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts