EarthlingX":1dzvvlmu said:About Zubrin :
experimental example :
NASA : Avatar Explore: Autonomous Robotic Operations Performed from the ISS (Avatar_Explore)
* Avatar Explore: Autonomous Robotic Operations Performed from the ISS (Avatar Explore) involves an astronaut onboard the ISS operating a four-wheeled rover as it scans the Mars Emulation Terrain located at the Canadian Space Agency headquarters for a possible geothermal source.
* The crewmember will evaluate data through a graphical user interface rendered on a laptop. This interface features a map of the MET and displays the location of the rover.
* Avatar Explore is the first terrestrial rover ever controlled from space.
EarthlingX":lj8k1epx said:You have Orion and you can put it in the orbit ? That's news.
Orion is dead, killed by the Obama Administration, whether you, I, Congress, or anyone else likes it. Even if there is some question of the legality of what the White House and Bolden have done. Read the stories I posted links to, in the past couple of days.steve82":8xw7rlzj said:No. But funding Orion is a quicker path to Mars than terrestrial telerobotics from the ISS. It will at least require investment in new technology and it won't hog valuable ISS space and time.
rockett":uv2xx8nf said:I happen to agree with you. There are simply too many unknowns, and too much to be developed.
The "refuel module" for example. What if something goes wrong with it while you are en-route?
It also makes your return totally dependent on landing, no aborting the mission like Apollo 13 did. A very high risk strategy.
rockett":l2clune7 said:New Article
Proposing heavy lift instead of using it all for commercial certification.
rockett":2xtw03ms said:Orion is dead, killed by the Obama Administration, whether you, I, Congress, or anyone else likes it.
We LANDED in 1969. I watched it live. Please at least get your history straight.neutrino78x":3vifhkhk said:That's what they said in 1969. We can't go to the Moon. There are simply too many unknowns.
Launch windows. You gonna wait 6 years between missions?neutrino78x":3vifhkhk said:You do not send the humans until it has been verified that the module has generated the return fuel.
That's not an abort, that's a commit, because you have to land and launch.neutrino78x":3vifhkhk said:You can still abort, but you would abort to Mars.
Wrong again Brian. Do you homework.neutrino78x":39zg85yk said:Ok, but you do realize that Obama's proposed budget has 6 billion USD for development of a heavy lift vehicle, right? In addition to the money spent on stimulating/certifying infomercial rockets?
That's propulsion R&D only, 5 years, and only $3.1 B for those five years. Sure, that's a real strong commitment. :lol:President Obama's budget request calls for $3.1 billion to be spent in the next five years for heavy-lift propulsion research and development.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/01nasabudget/the administration announced plans to pump an additional $6 billion into NASA's budget over the next five years to kick start development of a new commercial manned spaceflight capability, including some $500 million in 2011.
You missed ATK and all the rest. But it was pretty lame from the beginning, underfunded, and poorly executed.neutrino78x":15aqm8gs said:I support the cancellation of Orion. It was basically a long term subsidy for Lockheed!!
Not a chance, not realistic either. We did that approach with Apollo, and we have lived with the results 40 years.neutrino78x":15aqm8gs said:If you want a goal oriented space program, in my opinion, the goals should have deadlines within the Presidential term. Like "land a man on the Moon in the next 5 years". Not "in 10 years, we may or may not put a man in orbit around the moon". Not "in 10 years, we will have a Shuttle replacement".
The President is going with "No Path" not "Flexible Path", read the tea leaves (and for that matter, articles in this thread, Boldens testimonies, and look at the funding structure). This administration has washed it's hands of manned space flight.neutrino78x":15aqm8gs said:I think "Flexible Path", which is what the President appears to be going with, is a good idea, because you can pivot and adapt to changing circumstances. Perhaps your space probes find life on Mars. Perhaps China lands on the Moon. With Flexible Path, you don't have to concentrate all human space flight resources on one target, at the exclusion of everything else.
Brian,neutrino78x":2qh3fneh said:If you do things the Mars Direct way, you can launch something toward your Mars base one month, and the next month, launch something toward your moon base. Then maybe go by an asteroid. Reason being that you are using the same heavy lift vehicle for all purposes, and the same habitat module, just switching out propulsion modules (or, at least, changing the amount of fuel in said propulsion module).
Venus is only a long term option; until you terraform, you can't construct buildings on the surface there. You have to build everything somewhere else and ship it to Venus. On Mars, you have access to the surface now, with today's technology.
Also, if men are going to operate robots from Phobos, they might as well go directly to the Martian surface. If you're going to send men, do it all the way.
rockett":2yiqfmhy said:1. Mars is NOT the only destination in the universe (or only planet or moon either). There are others which have just as much, or possibly more merit. Give them due consideration.
2. Mars Direct is A WAY, not the ONLY WAY. There are others which have just as much, or possibly more merit. Give them due consideration.
3. Heavy lift of ANY kind is way out in the 2020-2030 time frame, if the Obama adminstration has it's way. Charlie Bolden said so. It's in his House of Representatives testimony, if I recall correctly.
Sorry, but that is the present reality of the situation.
Mars Society FAQ":3fhy5cfn said:Q: What is meant by a Mars "launch window"?
A: Due to the trajectories ships must follow when going from Earth to Mars, certain relative positions of the two planets allow for maximum speed with minimum propulsion costs. Whenever such a set of relative positions occurs -- approximately once every 26 months -- a "window" of opportunity opens for a "launch" to Mars. The most recent window was in August of 2005; the next one will open in October of 2007.
Mars Direct FAQ":29vydl56 said:The general outline of Mars Direct is simple. In the first year of implementation, an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) is launched to Mars, arriving 6 months later. Upon landing, a rover is deployed that contains the reactors necessary to generate rocket fuel for the return trip. After 13 months, a fully-fueled return vehicle will be sitting on the surface of Mars.
During the next launch window, 26 months after the ERV was launched, two more craft are sent up: a second ERV and a habitat module (hab), the astronauts' ship. This time the ERV is sent on a low-power trajectory, designed to make it to Mars in 8 months -- so that it can be landed at the same site as the hab if the first ERV experiences any problems. Assuming that the first ERV works correctly, the second ERV is landed at a different site, thus opening up another area of Mars for exploration by the next crew.
After a year and a half on the Martian surface, the first crew returns to Earth, leaving behind the hab, the rovers associated with it, and any ongoing experiments conducted there. They land on Earth 6 months later to a hero's welcome, with the next hab/ERV already on the way to Mars.
rockett":n66wbqqk said:You missed ATK and all the rest. But it was pretty lame from the beginning, underfunded, and poorly executed.
The President is going with "No Path" not "Flexible Path", read the tea leaves (and for that matter, articles in this thread, Boldens testimonies, and look at the funding structure). This administration has washed it's hands of manned space flight.
Need a booster and crew capsule to do that. With Aries shut down, and a lack of lifting capacity for an unproven Falcon 9, we have nothing. That equates to "No Path".neutrino78x":lidw78bd said:What the administration is doing is exactly what was advised under "Flexible Path" in the Augustine Report. Cancel Constellation, fund the commercial New Space industry, then determine some light and quick targets in space where we can send humans. That's exactly what the Augustine group said to do.
rockett":34260scr said:Another half a billion, down the drain.
$500 million launcher lacks one thing: rocket
pathfinder_01":1n1hohaq said:Trading 4-6 flights in LEO for 2 flights to the moon a year is a really dumb trade. If constellation could have enabled flights to the moon at a similar rate as the shuttle I would have supported it. I for one am glad this foul up of program is shut down and I am a space flight fan!
edkyle99":1gnkb2ai said:pathfinder_01":1gnkb2ai said:Trading 4-6 flights in LEO for 2 flights to the moon a year is a really dumb trade. If constellation could have enabled flights to the moon at a similar rate as the shuttle I would have supported it. I for one am glad this foul up of program is shut down and I am a space flight fan!
Seriously? You would rather see quarterly repetitive LEO flights to nowhere rather than see astronauts on the Moon?
I would take one lunar landing every two or three years over *any* flights to LEO.
- Ed Kyle