Plymouth Rock Mission Goals: Earth Security or Job Security?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

uberhund

Guest
Josh Hopkins' preview of the Plymouth Rock mission goals make good movie material, but does it make economic sense?

Capabilities for each of the mission goals have already been demonstrated by probes and unmanned craft. Why spend the money and delay Earth's security by forcing humans into the mission plan using warmed-over Apollo hardware that should be in a musuem?

Surely this is about keeping human space flight professionals employed rather than employing common sense.

http://www.space.com/news/asteroid-mission-plans-orion-spacecraft-100830.html
 
B

brandbll

Guest
What i don't understand is how this is a better idea for a stepping stone to Mars than using the Moon? I would think safety wise you're increasing your risk of a fatal incident ten fold. Landing on the moon would be difficult even with the help of LRO, but some distant asteroid we might not even know that much about? Not to mention you could spend lots more time doing ground based research on the Moon i'd think. Is the science we'd discover with men on some random asteroid more important than that we'd find on the moon(not to mention the potential quantity of information)? I don't know, this just doesn't sound very logical to me.
 
U

uberhund

Guest
Good input, brandball.

Until probes tell us that asteroids are harvest-worthy, surely the Moon is a more sensible destination for on the scene human presence.
 
B

brandbll

Guest
The SDC article also talke about the asteroids ranging up to 230 ft across. Oh boy, that sounds like an easy target to hit. :roll: They aren't allowing a whole lot of room for error...
 
D

docm

Guest
Not saying asteroid missions shouldn't be on NASA's to-do list, but this smells like more corporate welfare to keep as many Constellation components in the budget as possible. PORK.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Since this is a "powerpoint" mission, not yet a real one, I am moving this topic to Space Business and Technology; that's where the discussion seems to be heading anyway.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
JoshHopkins":26po46ep said:
If you're interested in Plymouth Rock, you may want to take a look at some of the material about this study at the Lockheed Martin website.

If you prefer charts, try the briefing package.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... ug2010.pdf

If you have a bit more time, here's the full study report.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... ug2010.pdf

Some of the issues raised in this discussion are addressed in the report.


Josh Hopkins
Very nice reading, thanks :)

Welcome to SDC !
 
S

samkent

Guest
It does seem like a save our jobs project. But it does stand a better chance of getting approval than a lunar landing.


Oh boy, that sounds like an easy target to hit.

With ground observation and mid course corrections size is not an issue.


Notice how the picture on the last page shows a different vehicle. So much for redundancy and simplicity.

But still once we have the ability to launch to orbit I would support a feel good mission to an asteroid. Imagine the daily buzz on the boards here.
 
U

uberhund

Guest
I have to agree with samkent on that point.

While it may not make scientific or economic sense, a voyage to an asteroid as depicted in their presentation is a terrifically exciting idea and I would love to go.
 
R

rockett

Guest
uberhund":32mn0uh6 said:
Good input, brandball.

Until probes tell us that asteroids are harvest-worthy, surely the Moon is a more sensible destination for on the scene human presence.
For once we are in agreement, here. How many people can you put on an asteroid base? Nothing to be done there that couldn't be done as well with robotic missions.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Nothing new here except that some aero space executives are validating Obama's parting stub. Again what is the point of sending men to a small chunk of rock? Even if it can be done, and I'm not convinced we have a propulsion system capable of taking men and their equipment to intercept an earth crossing orbit of an asteroid and getting back home without any gravity assists, what scientific breakthroughs would be made?

Face it at least in this one case Bush had it right, going to the moon in force is the smart next move for HSF
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Asteroid mission is what can be done now, with much less money than more flags on the Moon.

Apart from science, it will also bring required solutions for anywhere else.

You can't blame LM to include mostly their own solutions in their proposal, but i don't see them excluding other.

If you take time to read the paper, you will note, that they don't have all the answers, but it is a good start, much better than the first time i saw this about a year ago.

This proposal reminds very much of Buzz Aldrin's 'Exploration Module, or XM' :
buzzaldrin.com : Spaceships Worthy of the Name
In storage at Marshall Spaceflight Center, and elsewhere around the country are spacecraft components from which we can build a true spaceship, one worthy of the name. I’ve called the Exploration Module, or XM. This vehicle, lifted up to orbit aboard the Space Shuttle in its final missions, would be a true spacecraft that lives only in space. Just like the Lunar Module Eagle that Neil Armstrong and I rode down to the moon’s surface during our Apollo 11 flight. Once docked to the International Space Station, astronaut crews could practice and train for future deep space missions, to encounter asteroids say, or the moons of Mars.

If the XM was shielded and connected with a spacecraft like the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle or some other return-to-Earth craft, once tested at the space station, we could take it out for a spin, say cycling between the Earth and the moon. My concept for a cycling spaceship, now universally called the Aldrin cycler, could be fashioned out of the XM. All we’d need would be a rocket to attach to it, maybe like the Centaur liquid hydrogen upper stage flown many times aboard many different launchers – and managed by Ohio’s Glenn Research Center.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
What I see here is NASA being proactive and doing something that is outside of LEO. That in itself is commendable. There are many benefits that we receive from going to an asteroid, and it should be cheaper and easier than a return to the moon or a Mars mission. It is important to challenge our space program to achieve lofty goals, and an asteroid mission is one of those.

This is very exciting for supporters of the manned space program. Finally we are preparing to leave LEO instead of continuing our operations there. We stand to gain a lot from such an asteroid mission, which could occur in the 2020-2025 timeframe:

-The Japanese Hayabusa mission is a perfect example of the inefficiency of robotic exploration probes. It reportedly returned a few bits of asteroid dust which will be studied in the coming months. But a manned mission can deploy a lot more science experiments and bring back pounds of asteroid samples for study here on Earth.

-By landing on an asteroid and exploring it we have furthered our capability to resist a possible asteroid strike on Earth. The more methods we have of deflecting or diverting an impact asteroid the better.

-We will have a definite boost in national pride and excel far ahead of the other space programs as we will be the only space program to have not only landed on a celestial body but have done it twice.

-Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Ceres, and other such missions will be deep space exploration that require long mission timelines. By doing an asteroid mission we get more experience on how to do these future missions well. The future of space exploration and eventual colonization begins here.

-This goal is pretty far off, but the commercial space industry is growing and one day it may take on the challenge of mining an asteroid. John S. Lewis states that an asteroid 1 mile in diameter could hold as much as $20 trillion in precious metals.

-By deploying the science experiments and studying the samples we can learn a lot about our solar system and our planet. A lot of science work could be done here which unmanned missions just aren't capable of. If you want to get real science done then send real scientists, not robots who usually fail at their goal and don't return very much data.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
This is actually more than a year old, before the announced asteroid mission :
spaceflightnow.com : Dual Orion capsules studied for manned asteroid missions
BY CRAIG COVAULT
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: August 17, 2009

twoorions.jpg


A manned asteroid mission using two Orion spacecraft, docked nose-to-nose to form a 50-ton deep space vehicle, is being studied by Lockheed Martin Space Systems as an alternative to resumption of U.S. lunar landing missions.

The Orion asteroid mission concept is being unveiled just as the Presidential committee reviewing U.S. human space flight is citing asteroid missions after 2020 as a less costly alternative to NASA's proposed lunar landing infrastructure. Results of the review will be briefed to President Obama by Norman Augustine, committee chairman, by the end of August.


A bit more in the past :
ti.arc.nasa.gov : NEO Crewed Mission Study
Crewed NEO missions will put humans demonstrably on the way to Mars while producing exciting new science.
Constellation Program

Deep-space experience is critical to humanity’s expansion beyond the Earth-Moon system. A series of missions to NEOs, each one longer and more distant than the last, would provide essential mission experience for astronauts, mission operations, and Mars-class spacecraft systems. Such missions would be on par technically (though not in flight time) to visiting the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos. Longer NEO missions would be more Mars-like in terms of distance, time, and system performance.
 
S

steve82

Guest
It fits very well into the desire in the various Bills in Congress to fund some exploration and beyond earth orbit technology, while avoiding using the dreaded "M-" word. It also demonstrates beyond doubt that Orion is not your every day taxi to LEO vehicle but a long-duration mission platform qualified for deep space environments. I'd also like to see them put an arm on the Service Module and use it for HST and other servicing, myself, which it would be perfectly capable of doing.
 
R

rockett

Guest
steve82":1ev4vour said:
It fits very well into the desire in the various Bills in Congress to fund some exploration and beyond earth orbit technology, while avoiding using the dreaded "M-" word. It also demonstrates beyond doubt that Orion is not your every day taxi to LEO vehicle but a long-duration mission platform qualified for deep space environments. I'd also like to see them put an arm on the Service Module and use it for HST and other servicing, myself, which it would be perfectly capable of doing.
True, the Orion is the furthest along in development toward a new capsule, steve, but please, it's just a picture of an idea. :roll:

None of that has been built yet, and most was in the design phase (before all the confusion caused by the Administration). Let's not start tacking on cargo bays, handling arms, (wings?) and all the rest just yet.

What we really need is a true point to point space vehicle that doesn't carry all the overhead and redundancy of two Orions tacked together(not to mention the extra mass of heat shields and such) for real deep space missions.

Something like Buzz Adrin's XM would be much more appropriate and efficient. Use the ISS as a transfer point.

For these long-duration missions we need an entirely new spacecraft that I call the Exploration Module, or XM. Unlike the Orion capsule, which is designed for short flights around the Earth and to the moon, the XM would contain the radiation shields, artificial gravity, food-production and recycling facilities necessary for a spaceflight of up to three years,” explains Buzz.
Unified Space Vision
http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/unified-space-vision/
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
This might be the basis for XM :

http://www.spaceflightnow.com : Test article could facilitate space station applications
BY STEPHEN CLARK

Posted: August 31, 2010

Engineers at the Kennedy Space Center are cleaning and studying a grounded space station module that could be launched in a few years as a hub for inflatable habitats and technology demonstrations.

sspf.jpg

The Node Structural Test Article inside the Space Station Processing Facility during a visit of NASA astronaut candidates in June. Credit: NASA/KSC

Kirk Shireman, NASA's deputy International Space Station program manager, said plans to launch the new component will depend on the outcome of space budget and policy debates among Congress and the White House.

If NASA, an international partner, or commercial firm wants to add new pieces to the station, there could be a shortage of docking and berthing ports on the modules already in space.


There is also CST-100, Orion's offspring :
SDC thread : Boeing CST-100 Updates

This one is supposed to be able to fly on any of 20t launchers, perhaps even Ariane and if i stretch my imagination, Proton.

As for the Moon, i like Buzz's idea for international consortium to do it. There seams to be will among agencies - perhaps they just need to sit at the table and make it real. International agreements are also less prone to single sided political disturbances.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
This mission accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done for about 1% of the cost by a robotic probe.
 
U

uberhund

Guest
vulture4":1a4kjci2 said:
This mission accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done for about 1% of the cost by a robotic probe.
Bravo, Vulture. I'm glad I'm not the only one in this forum that can do the simple arithmetic to arrive at that fact.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
vulture4":2m9alawj said:
This mission accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done for about 1% of the cost by a robotic probe.
- Robotic probe can not test human spaceships on long duration flights out of Earth's magnetic shield. If we want to see such flights to happen, this is one of the steps.

What i don't like is thrashing most of the spacecraft. It is not very sustainable, i think. I also don't see the need for a HLV. I think money spent for that would be better used for in-space fuel transfer tech and space tugs, which should make it cheaper, sooner and more affordable, plus create some market for fuel carriers.

Radiation shielding should also be improved. That hiding behind fuel, food and water doesn't sound very reassuring.

I'm also rather unimpressed by a small space that Orion provides for such a long duration flight.

Perhaps start even closer, like servicing some satellite in a higher orbit and going back to the ISS would be a better start, or putting together a staging point at Lagrangian point of choice, and then use something of the sort for in-space shuttle.
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
vulture4":3e12rvxe said:
This mission accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done for about 1% of the cost by a robotic probe.

Normally I would agree with you, but with an asteroid there is national security interest, albeit long term. A manned mission also eliminates concerns about speed of light delay in terms of controlling an asteroid in a relative emergency.

--Brian
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
rockett":2kp5e3r6 said:
What we really need is a true point to point space vehicle that doesn't carry all the overhead and redundancy of two Orions tacked together(not to mention the extra mass of heat shields and such) for real deep space missions.

Sure, but with a limited budget, it might be better to use two or more commercial capsules linked together.

--Brian
 
V

vulture4

Guest
neutrino78x":2p9m1oet said:
vulture4":2p9m1oet said:
This mission accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done for about 1% of the cost by a robotic probe.
Normally I would agree with you, but with an asteroid there is national security interest, albeit long term. A manned mission also eliminates concerns about speed of light delay in terms of controlling an asteroid in a relative emergency.
--Brian

It's not clear what national security interest there is, or how it could be served by having a few people spend a few days there when a probe could provide reports indefinitely. Even NEAR and Hayabusa did quite a bit in analyzing what was there. As to the speed of light, it's not likely a crew would, or would have to, do anything without checking with ground control, while most probes have fairly complex autonomous capabilities. We could establish permanent robotic bases on dozens of asteroids for less than the cost of one manned mission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts