It's about time somenoe proposed it: (NASA/Astronomy related

Page 1 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

30 Jul 2009, 11:41 pm

A committee reviewing NASA's goals has outlined a scheme to send astronauts on progressively longer space trips – including dockings with asteroids and flybys of Venus – to prepare for an eventual landing on Mars.

The White House set up the committee, chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, to review NASA's plans for human spaceflight, which are currently focused on returning astronauts to the moon by 2020.

It is examining NASA's current plans and exploring alternative destinations and hardware that NASA could pursue.

Committee member Edward Crawley of MIT presented a short list of possible destinations for future human missions at a public meeting on Thursday in Cocoa Beach, Florida. He is the head of a subcommittee that is investigating options for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

One of the options the team proposed is called the "flexible path", which Crawley also described as a "deep space" or "in space" option.

It would see astronauts sent on a series of progressively longer missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The first would fly by the moon. Later missions would include rendezvousing with one or more of the many asteroids on orbits that take them close to Earth. Asteroid missions would take several months each.

Later, astronauts could fly by Mars and Venus, and touch down on Mars's 27-kilometre-wide moon Phobos. Each of these missions would take more than a year.
Long missions

Crawley argued that this kind of activity would help pave the way for eventual human missions to the Martian surface.

Preparing for such missions requires gaining more experience in operating on the surface of bodies beyond Earth, Crawley said. But it may actually be more critical to gain experience with long-duration space missions far from Earth, which human missions to Mars would require, he said.

"It is true we need to gain experience exploring planetary surfaces, but in fact we've done some of that," he said at the meeting. "There have been six piloted missions to the moon and we have a robust robotic programme that explores planetary surfaces. What we actually have almost no experience at all with is operations in deep space."

Such missions would require learning how to deal with the hazard of space radiation, he said. Exposure to energetic charged particles from the solar wind and sources outside the solar system could put astronauts on lengthy missions at increased risk of cancer and even cognitive problems. Spacecraft in low-Earth orbit, such as the shuttle and the International Space Station, are protected from these particles by the Earth's magnetic field, but astronauts travelling farther afield would not benefit from this protection.
Flyby spacecraft

An advantage of the stepwise approach is that the difficult job of building landers and surface equipment could be deferred, since early missions would be restricted to flybys or rendezvousing with small objects that have negligible gravity – a process that would resemble docking with another spacecraft.

Although Crawley did not give a specific year by which the first human mission to an asteroid could occur, he said it could happen within six years of starting a project to accomplish this goal.

The other options on the subcommittee's shortlist were:

• Mars first: Cancel the return to the moon and focus on sending humans to Mars instead.

• Lunar global: Have astronauts land in many different places on the moon's surface, with the option of eventually building a lunar outpost, but focus on doing things there that really help prepare the way for human Mars missions. In one version of this option, hardware would be designed from the beginning to be used on Mars, with the moon missions serving to test it.

• Continue with the current plan, which aims to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 and eventually build a permanent lunar base. Meeting the 2020 deadline would presumably require an increase to NASA's budget.

• Continue with the current plan, but keep within the budget currently expected for NASA by slowing the schedule.

• Continue with the current plan, but cancel the Ares I rocket designed to put a crew capsule in low-Earth orbit. In this case, NASA would build only the more powerful Ares V rocket, which is capable of sending crew and cargo to the moon.

Members of the subcommittee said the list was preliminary, and want to study the options further before making recommendations to the full committee. Even then, the full committee could choose to make changes before it submits its final report to NASA and the White House by 31 August.
Cost estimates

Panel member Bohdan Bejmuk, a former manager of space shuttle-related work at the aerospace company Boeing, said he was excited by the options Crawley proposed, but wondered how affordable they would be. "I'm thinking, 'God what is this going to cost?' Seriously, I'm thinking half a trillion dollars for some of the stuff you're talking about." No cost estimates were provided during the meeting.

Crawley's subcommittee also came out strongly in favour of creating fuel depots in space as a way to facilitate exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Without fuel depots, rockets heading for the moon or beyond must be powerful enough to haul up all the fuel they need from Earth's surface, in addition to any useful payload they intend to carry. That means only very large and expensive rockets can carry out human missions to the moon.

But smaller, cheaper rockets could get the job done if they could fuel up in low-Earth orbit before continuing to their final destination. The fuel could be delivered to the depots by relatively small rockets – a process that advocates say would provide a market to stimulate commercial development of new and perhaps cheaper launch vehicles.

The Augustine committee has been asked to present an array of options in its final report, rather than endorse a single plan for NASA's future human spaceflight activities.

www.newscientist.com NASA panel may propose 'deep space' crewed missions

----------------------

This is the kind of stuff NASA has been needing to do for a while.

/Let's go to Mars.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

31 Jul 2009, 11:11 am

works for me. I've heard a rumor that they're going to abandon the Space Station...be nice to see things going in the other direction.



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

31 Jul 2009, 2:00 pm

Half a trillion? Bejmuk is saying we could have a permanent Lunar base, persistent deep-space operations, and men on Mars for about half the cost of the Iraq war? And he thinks this is a problem?


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2009, 4:02 pm

pakled wrote:
works for me. I've heard a rumor that they're going to abandon the Space Station...be nice to see things going in the other direction.


Abondon ISS after sinking nearly $100 billion into it? Beside, we have no other space station currently in operation.

I seriously doubt this rumor.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2009, 4:04 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
Half a trillion? Bejmuk is saying we could have a permanent Lunar base, persistent deep-space operations, and men on Mars for about half the cost of the Iraq war? And he thinks this is a problem?


Don't be too sure of that. We have the technology for a war in Iraq. We don't have the technology for a permanent base on the Moon. Besides which there is no water there. No water, no permanent base.

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,660
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

31 Jul 2009, 4:34 pm

The idea of having fuel depots in orbit seems to be the most cost effective option. The technology of building a permanent base on the the moon may not be available as yet but I thought that they were trying to learn what they can to make this possible. It may also be possible to resupply that moon base due to the moons relative proximity to the earth.

Also wasn't it Buzz Aldrin who proposed the Mars first option?



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

02 Aug 2009, 8:20 pm

It's seem we could finally go somewhere.:cheers: The only thing done with humans crew in sapce program for the past thirty is turning aroud the earth again and again and again and again.... Can't wait to see humans on a asteroid. 8)



Aoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 683

03 Aug 2009, 12:07 am

I'm all for all of it. Keep the ISS up (despite credible rumors that it may be abandoned) and doing what it does. Keep the Hubble in operation even though the James Webb telescope is going up soon. Send probes to Europa, Titan, Neptune. Build bases at L1 and L2, plus the Moon, Mars, and eventually hollow out an asteroid to turn it into an interstellar space vehicle that can slowly start humanity's expansion into the galaxy.

All this for far less than the cost of the War on Terror, whose benefits are very hard to quantify in any medium or long-term analysis.



Doublefrost
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

11 Aug 2009, 4:04 am

For half a trillion. Oh no. Not that the government has problems with spending that kind of money on useless things. In fact, a permanent lunar base could probably have a gigantic laser built on it for barely any more cost. Not that we'd build a "laser" on the moon making it a "Death Star" or anything.

...Actually, if that gets pitched to the DoD, you'd probably see the funding for a moon base pretty fast.

The problem of not having the technology isn't not having it. It's the not even bothering to seriously attempt developing it. Which is a substantial part of the space program. We didn't have the technology to land on the moon until the Apollo Program. We didn't have the technology to put robotic rovers on Mars either until we said we're building them then putting them there.

The tipping point for space will probably come when it finally inches into commercial exploitation of the near infinite resources available up there. Probably not even very quickly then either. It'll seem too 'crazy' or too 'made-up' to actually do it even when we're able to.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Aug 2009, 4:47 pm

Doublefrost wrote:
For half a trillion. Oh no. Not that the government has problems with spending that kind of money on useless things. In fact, a permanent lunar base could probably have a gigantic laser built on it for barely any more cost. Not that we'd build a "laser" on the moon making it a "Death Star" or anything.



In -The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-, Robert Heinlein suggested hurling rocks using a mass driver. The rocks would produce energies of impact comparable to tactical nukes with the added bonus of no residual radiation. And there is no defense against it.

Laser beams can be trivially blocked using reflectors.


ruveyn



Warsie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,542
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

12 Aug 2009, 8:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:


In -The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-, Robert Heinlein suggested hurling rocks using a mass driver. The rocks would produce energies of impact comparable to tactical nukes with the added bonus of no residual radiation. And there is no defense against it.

Laser beams can be trivially blocked using reflectors.[/quote]

In that same novel, the ABM systems of the richer members of the Federated Nations were able to knock out the asteroids. They're not as invincible as you think-the only problem was there were more asteroids than ABM. I'd expect the Federated Nations to deploy thier whole fleet and wipe out the lunar colony anyway...


_________________
I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Masterdebating on chi-city's south side.......!


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

12 Aug 2009, 10:34 pm

Well, the rock capsules weren't so much "destroyed" as "knocked aside" - the rebels were trying very hard not to kill civilians, but one city was wiped out because a rock intended for a mountaintop was deflected into a city...

The original purpose of the mass driver, of course, was to deliver quantities of grains and other foodstuffs grown in lunar caverns to a starving Earth. The protagonist reported that of the original threat to deliver the grain capsules at terminal velocity, rather than softer splashdowns, "Professor's words sparked headlines in Terra newspapers next day - LOONIES THREATEN TO THROW RICE!"


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


CaroleTucson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 824
Location: Tucson, AZ

12 Aug 2009, 10:49 pm

I don't see the point of sending a manned mission to Mars. They've already had good looks at the surface for years now ... what do they think a human is going to discover that a robot wouldn't?

It would be much more efficient to spend the money on smarter and more capable computers and robots. You can make one hell of a fine robot for a fraction of what it will cost to send humans.

And even if this wasn't true, Mars would be the last place you could send humans anyway. Everything else is too far, unless it turns out you can use wormholes or some other exotic thing that hasn't been proven to exist yet.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Aug 2009, 4:31 am

CaroleTucson wrote:

And even if this wasn't true, Mars would be the last place you could send humans anyway. Everything else is too far, unless it turns out you can use wormholes or some other exotic thing that hasn't been proven to exist yet.


Venus is a worse place than Mars. Mars could (conceivably) be terraformed. Forget about Venus (or Mercury). They are Hell.

The Moon is a reasonable place to colonize. The backside of the Moon would be an ideal place to build large observatories. There is no Earth-glare and no atmosphere to interfere with seeing (that includes radio spectra as well as visible light).

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,660
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

13 Aug 2009, 3:12 pm

Has anyone seen the latest public meeting of the Augustine Commission? It looks like NASA will need an increase in budget for its Constellation Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/08_12_meeting.html



CaroleTucson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 824
Location: Tucson, AZ

13 Aug 2009, 3:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
CaroleTucson wrote:

And even if this wasn't true, Mars would be the last place you could send humans anyway. Everything else is too far, unless it turns out you can use wormholes or some other exotic thing that hasn't been proven to exist yet.


Venus is a worse place than Mars. Mars could (conceivably) be terraformed. Forget about Venus (or Mercury). They are Hell.


Yes, you're right. I didn't word my response very well. When I said the "last place" I meant the "farthest out" ... the most distant.