what should nasa's next "BIG" mission be

ehs40 · Jul 17, 2005

with deep impact's main mission over and other than the shuttle needing to be launched dose anyone have an idea for what nasa should do?

spacester · Jul 17, 2005

Here is what the people of NASA should do: Follow Administrator Mike Griffin on our mutual journey to the reality of a space-faring society. Make his approach your approach. You wanted a leader, now you've got one, time to be good followers. Build the SDHLV and CEV and help t/space build private human spaceflight for hire. Listen to people, drop the NIH crap. Let's see . . . yup, that's pretty much it.

vogon13 · Jul 17, 2005

Prometheous carrier craft and the following outer solar system probes: Europa Orbiter Europa Lander Europa DSV Jupiter Polar Orbiter Titan Rover Iapetus Orbiter Iapetus Lander/Rover Enceladus Orbiter Long Duration Uranus Orbiter with emphasis on satellites Triton Lander Neptune Orbiter KBO flybys Pluto Orbiter Chiron flyby Saturn Atmospheric Probe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

ehs40 · Jul 17, 2005

i agree with spacester and get the cev finshed

ehs40 · Jul 17, 2005

i like vogon13's ideas as well but should nasa get those up sooner rather than later?? what do u think?? and if sooner how realistically possible for those

mikejz · Jul 17, 2005

Real exploration of Aerocapture and solar sails. With Aerocapture, it makes a Titan orbiter mission to #'s 7 and 8 a lot less of a Delta-V hit. On the practicle side, I would like to see the design of a standard line of hardware for deep space missions. For example a 'unified Mars Landing/Lander Bus' or complete probes that could server many different mission types with minimal changes to the design. I would also like to Nasa to start funding more university class missions, possibly with an enphisis on building micro-sats for NEO flyby missions. From this, I hope to see a bigger move from hardware to software based intellience in space systems. Inflatible antennas might be useful. Remember electro-teathers? One of those should great around Jupiter. Building a fleat of low cost, long life mars weather stations

halman · Jul 18, 2005

ehs40, Peronally, I believe that NASA's next 'big' mission should be getting a base established on the Moon. Doing so will require the development of new launch vehicles, crew vehicles, and lunar landing vehicles. In the process, Cheap Access To Space should be stumbled upon, because flight rates will have to be high to maintain a Lunar base. A long term project such as a Lunar base will convince the private sector that there is a long term commitment to manned space exploration, so they will be more inclined to apply their own resources to developing space based hardware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

le3119 · Jul 19, 2005

Mercury, I suppose.

alokmohan · Jul 19, 2005

Terraform mars .MARS JOURNEY IS ONLY FRUITFUL THING I SEE.

vogon13 · Jul 19, 2005

There is a pretty advanced probe on the way to Mercury right now. It will flyby earth in the next few weeks for a gravity assist to Venus, and then it does the gravity tango with Venus a couple of times, and then (IIRC) does it with Mercury 3 times before dropping into orbit there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

radarredux · Jul 19, 2005

> with deep impact's main mission over and other than the shuttle needing to be launched dose anyone have an idea for what nasa should do?/i> (1) GPS for Mars and the Moon. I find it interesting that after landing on Mars it takes several days to figure out where we landed. (2) Space Internet. Certainly we already have a basic capability today (e.g., Mars lander communicates with orbiter, which sends message to Earth). But as we add more missions with more capability as part of the VSE, I think we need to increase bandwidth and robustness of the capability. We shouldn't lose communications with a Mars effort (lander, orbiter, human mission) when Mars is on the far side of the sun. Same is true with human missions to the far side of the moon. (3) Standard NEO lander platform and then lots of landers. The pictures from Deep Impact's projectile were great! So were the images from the NEAR landing on Eros. I would like to see a relatively common lander plarform developed for landing on near earth objects, and then build a number of them to explore lots of objects. (4) Interstellar time capsule and beacon. Develop a nuclear electric ion propulsion spacecraft platform, build several (a common theme of mine), include lots of information (e.g., human DNA sequence, history, human language primers), and an omni directional beacon and a directional beacon pointed to Earth, and launch them to a number of nearby star systems. When they reach the star system they enter orbit and send out a signal from time to time to (1) let anyone else know they have arrived and (2) let our descendants (if any are around) know that they have arrived. Note, at least one system should be placed in orbit around our own sun in case the Earth goes through a dark age, recovers, and can find this vault of information from our past.

gsuschrist · Jul 19, 2005

Scrap manned flight and put the cash and resources into unmanned missions within the solar system. The 'moon' sounds great but we'd end up in a Shuttle/ISS quagmire with even more potential show stoppers...problems with a habitation..lunar vehicles...etc. One disaster on the moon and we could end up with tens of billions of dollars of hardware sitting empty on the Moon (and more decades squandered). We've been to the moon..put people in orbit around Earth. Time for the government to step aside an let private enterprise pick up the ball. 'If' there is valid motive then the entrepreneurs will exploit it. And if they 'go bust', it's their money. In the meantime I'd like more rovers sent to Mars, orbiters around the moons of Saturn, deep space telescopes, etc.

frodo1008 · Jul 19, 2005

Good Heavens! Do we really have to explain this to some new "expert" all over again! There is another thread by askold that has completely addresses this question. If you think that stoping all manned effort will somehow free up more funding for the robotic efforts that you have stated that you want then you are truly living in Fantasy Land!!! All that will happen is that money will be put back into the general budget of the federal government!! Besides NASA IS the ONLY agency that will even attempt doing these kinds of things. DO you REALLY think that private industry (which MUST generate "Profits", or perish) is going to be even slightly interested in sending unmanned probes out to the outer solar system???? After all, this IS NOT the Sci-Fi forum!!!

thalion · Jul 19, 2005

For unmanned missions: A Europa Orbiter and lander (or at least impactor), with a long-lived Titan lander a close second. Also high on my list would be a series of inexpensive Martian landers with seismometers to guage the structure of the planet's interior, or a single geophysical station / rover capable of doing radioisotope dating of rock, so that we can finally get some solid ages for the Martian geologic column, which has a lot of bearing on where to find signs of past life.

lunatio_gordin · Jul 19, 2005

let's not stop at Lander. How about a drill to find out exactly what's below that ice. Then, we need a robotic sub to look at those alien fish <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

radarredux · Jul 19, 2005

> DO you REALLY think that private industry (which MUST generate "Profits", or perish) is going to be even slightly interested in sending unmanned probes out to the outer solar system????/i> Generally I agree with this, but not entirely. (0) Already there is growing competition in the commercial suborbital science (and eventually tourist) missions (e.g., see TGV Rockets). (1) Don't forget, JPL, which has managed many of the most amazing unmanned exploration missions, is an FFRDC, which is sort of a chimera between a commercial organization and government organization. (2) Regarding missions to the moon, there have been some initial attempts to mount missions there. If NASA were to become a paying customer (e.g., NASA will pay $X million for data of a certain type), some commercial organizations may step forward. (3) The first solar sail mission, which died because of a failure in the booster, was privately funded. (4) SETI is privately funded. The Allen Telescope Array in particular is interesting in part because it will also be used for traditional radio astronomy research. (5) An X Prize approach (by the government or a consortium backed by a "hole-in-one" insurance policy) offering a large enough prize (e.g, $20 billion) for the first diffinitive proof of life outside the Earth biosphere in the next 10 years, might attract some takers. Look how much money people spend on The America's Cup. If your mission found life on Mars, a NEO, or somewhere else, 500 years from now history books will record your name. Ego can be a powerful motive. I can see Larry Ellison spending $1-2 billion for a chance to be remembered a half millennium from now like Columbus is ... and maybe win $20 billion along the way. (6) In the next 3-5 years we will probably see commercial services (at least supplies) t

frodo1008 · Jul 19, 2005

I admit that I don't quite understand. JPL IS a NASA center. They do buy hardware from private companies that is true. But, heck NASA buys almost ALL of its hardware from private companies. However, it is NASA's government funding that pays for this hardware and NOT the private companies themselves. Perhaps you can enlighten me here, but I know of no private companies that fund deep space probes. The information provided is certainly interesting to scientists, but what is the bottom line here? As for the space tourism business, it is in its infantcy at the present. Even the leader in this area, Burt Rutan is aware that it is going to be several years before even sub orbital flights are going to show a profit. Private investors are not just there because they are altruistic, you know! Until one step shows that it can make a decent bottom line, the next step is going to have it very difficult getting pure private funding. I would personally be delighted to find it otherwise. But in this case erring on the side of caution I believe is fully justified. As I am now 62 I really think that for at least my lifetime that NASA is going to remain on the cutting edge of space exploration!

radarredux · Jul 20, 2005

> JPL IS a NASA center/i> JPL is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). Its staff and managers are employees of Caltech and are not government civil servants. This gives Caltech more freedom to deploy human resources as needed (e.g., firing people or hiring people at higher wages). An FFRDC is sort of a half way house between a government organization and a commercial company. /> I know of no private companies that fund deep space probes./i> The private company wouldn't fund the mission so much as that NASA would buy the data (or service) from them. This would free the company to look for additional revenue sources for the same mission (e.g., putting a "Radio Shack" logo on a Lunar Rover). One big difference is that NASA would not pay until the data or service is delivered. For example, when NASA starts buying supply services to ISS on the commercial market, the commercial company only gets paid when the supplies have been safely delivered to ISS. If the rocket fails, the commercial company eats the cost (or probably their insurance company does). In contrast, a NASA contractor today will frequently get paid whether a mission succeeds or not. For example, United Space Alliance (USA) gets paid whether the shuttle flies or not. /> As for the space tourism business, it is in its infantcy at the present./i> That is correct, but I am looking at a 15+ year timeline. Which given that NASA first started working on a space station 21 years ago, 15 years isn't necessarily that long. The key is for NASA to help promote an independent industrial space capability. Unfortunately, NASA has fought this all the way. For example, Congress pushed NASA to look at commercial launch services to supply the ISS, and

john_316 · Jul 20, 2005

as posted previously.... finish CEV and SDHLV and help companies make or get access to space.... then the moon base will come soon after...

frodo1008 · Jul 20, 2005

Lets see if I can do this grabbing of sections of others posts also. Here goes: One big difference is that NASA would not pay until the data or service is delivered. For example, when NASA starts buying supply services to ISS on the commercial market, the commercial company only gets paid when the supplies have been safely delivered to ISS. If the rocket fails, the commercial company eats the cost (or probably their insurance company does). Wow, what fun! Is there some way of changing the colors here, or should I take such future sections off to word and change colors there? What you have just done here is to doom such small start up companies as space-X. Even if they could build rockets capable of reaching ISS with the weight necessary for re supply, one failure and "boom" they are history. You don't really think that the insurance companies that are already stretched in insuring commercial satellite failures (and they DO fail occasionally) are going to continue to fund a small start-up operation after any kind of failure do you! The main problem that I see with your general premise is that NASA just isn't going to be able to do what you are saying. They would need to fund not only what they are already commited to doing (such as finishing the ISS to core complete). And come up with a replacement for the STS in some 5 years. The only possible candidate that would have a chance at such a replacement other than the usual aerospace companies would be Burt Rutan and T-space (and indeed this IS a possibility), however Rutan is himself commited to a viable sub orbital system for Virgin Galactic (if congress stops being stupid about technology transfer, that is). So even as good as I think that Rutan and his people are, it IS a bit of a streatch that even he will come up with such a system in the time frame needed. Heck, it may even be a streatch for either LM or Boeing, and they DO have rather large resources. Eve

halman · Jul 20, 2005

RadarRedux, We all are voicing our pet projects here, but I think that we have to keep a sense of the possible if we are going to have any kind of real discussion. Certainly, private enterprise is finally, after 20 plus years of talk, stepping up to the commitment needed for real spacefaring hardware. Not in a big way, mind you, but Scaled Composites and Virgin Enterprises are pretty serious in their plans for a sub-orbital tourism program. If that pans out, then we will start to see some real investment in space. For some reason, people seem to think that private industry will be able to do space for far less than NASA does. I am certain that we will see some reduction in costs, but I don't see any basis to believe that engineers will suddenly start working for 10 dollars an hour, machine shops will cut their rates to pennies on the dollar, or that exotic composite materials are going to be fashioned into flightworthy vehicles for a few thousand bucks. Space is expensive, and it is going to stay that way until launch vehicles are mass produced, and it still will be expensive. Anyone priced a 747 recently? To expect private industry to suddenly be in a position to bid on a project that requires launch facilities, a tracking network, advanced materials science, software that can act on its own, and a recovery capability is unrealistic at this point in time. So far, we have seen one major effort, bankrolled by one of the richest men on the planet, who just happens to have a thing for spaceflight. Many people see a groundswell of private entries into the space program, but so far, no one has made it out of the atmosphere except for Scaled Composites. We can expect there to be 3 or 4, at least, private companies with working flight hardware before we see contracts for missions going to the private sector. Building a base on the Moon could easily cost over 100 billion dollars, which the government can afford if it is spread ou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

what should nasa's next "BIG" mission be

ehs40

Guest

spacester

Guest

vogon13

Guest

ehs40

Guest

ehs40

Guest

mikejz

Guest

halman

Guest

le3119

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

vogon13

Guest

radarredux

Guest

gsuschrist

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

thalion

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

radarredux

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

radarredux

Guest

john_316

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

halman

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page