Space news /comments

[Winner]

Insider: NASA's planned Space Launch System is a road to Hell

-> tl;dr: SLS is do mismanaged, so costly, and so unsustainable that it will practically bankrupt NASA and ruin the US space exploration programme. Moreover, the SLS programme is a political boondoggle which will never actually get on the launch pad.

With no clear destination and no money to pursue one, there are not enough projects to inspire and train the next generation of managers and designers who will, presumably, be needed a decade from now to start developing actual exploration hardware. This is a going-out-of-business strategy.

For all these reasons, the current NASA exploration strategy is a plan for the withering or even destruction of JSC, and with it the stagnation and decay of the Texas space industry.

SLS is killing JSC. SLS is killing Texas jobs. SLS is killing our national space agenda.

We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing budget.

Thoughts?

 

[Winner]

An update on the secretive Blue Origin suborbital/orbital vehicle

-> I really wonder how many of these little companies trying to build their own orbital spaceflight hardware will actually succeed. Seems to me that they're competing for a VEEEERY small market and can't possibly all survive, even if they succeeded in building viable rockets in the first place. Either someone has to subsidize them, or they go bankrupt.

This is perhaps why SKYLON is planned as an unmanned vehicle for launching satellites to space - there is actually a pretty sizeable market with good growth prospects there. Having a vehicle that could go up, launch satellites, pick up a satellite in low Earth orbit and bring it back to Earth for repairs, and do other stuff like that for "just" $10 million per launch would constitute a quantum leap in the space launch business.

Having another 10 dumb (semi)expendable rockets wouldn't, even though they could send people up there.

(-> More news on SKYLON )

 

[Michkov]

Aren't Blue Origins rockets supposed to be reusable, or am I mixing up my upstart rocket manufacturers?

 

[Winner]

ESA to Send Juice to Jupiter

-> Just so that you know, Juice means JUpiter ICy moons Explorer It's still a long time off, but ESA is now almost committed to sending a large (5-tonnes) probe to study Europe, Callisto and Ganymede. NASA bailed out of the joint Jupiter exploration campaign (well, what else is new), so it seems ESA will do it alone.

Aren't Blue Origins rockets supposed to be reusable, or am I mixing up my upstart rocket manufacturers?

The lower stage should eventually be reusable, if I understand it correctly.

 

[Winner]

All right, I've been seriously neglecting this thread. I missed some important events:

- Space-X successfully delivered first cargo to ISS
- The Chinese have sent their first woman to space
etc.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa But...

Dutch are planning to settle Mars in a reality show

-> also, check out their video. I can say right now that this won't work with about 99.9% certainty, but I don't think the concept - use TV/internet broadcast to popularize and cash in on space exploration - is a bad idea. It should definitely be done when the first people are sent to Mars, if only to make people more interested and invested.

 

[Crezth]

Haha oh my gosh, that is truly crazy. I shared that with my coworkers, we all got a great laugh out of it.

 

[History_Buff]

Yeah, that's really nuts. Half of the technology they'd need for that doesn't exist yet, and I don't see it getting built in that sort of environment.

Though I totally don't understand the complaint about radiation. It's really not that severe, and they definitely won't be dead from cancer within a year.

A better question for me is who in their right mind will launch this mission, knowing that these people will certainly die, almost certainly on film, and quite probably very terribly. Either for a government or a private launch company, I don't see them wanting their name associated with that.

 

[peter grimes]

Yeah, that's really nuts. Half of the technology they'd need for that doesn't exist yet, and I don't see it getting built in that sort of environment.

Though I totally don't understand the complaint about radiation. It's really not that severe, and they definitely won't be dead from cancer within a year.

A better question for me is who in their right mind will launch this mission, knowing that these people will certainly die, almost certainly on film, and quite probably very terribly. Either for a government or a private launch company, I don't see them wanting their name associated with that.

I haven't seen the video - I'm on my phone, but I thought radiation was a serious concern for long term settlement, seeing that Mars is lacking earth's protective magnetic field.

I also think bone weakness would be a big deal, especially when factoring in the forces needed to manage entry into Mars' thin atmosphere.

 

[Winner]

Though I totally don't understand the complaint about radiation. It's really not that severe, and they definitely won't be dead from cancer within a year.

Because people who generally oppose human spaceflight in general or human spaceflight not done by themselves use the threat of radiation (which to most laymen smells of black magic and scary evilness) to postpone any exploratory missions beyond LEO indefinitely.

The only form of radiation danger in space which we can't really mitigate at the moment is GCR. The good news is that the dose one will get during six months transit to Mars is FAR from lethal. It would increase the risk of getting cancer by a few percent, and probably also increase the risk of genetic defects in posterity. That can be avoided through the use of pre-extracted zygotes and sperm.

A better question for me is who in their right mind will launch this mission, knowing that these people will certainly die, almost certainly on film, and quite probably very terribly. Either for a government or a private launch company, I don't see them wanting their name associated with that.

Obviously, reasonable safety of the crew would have to be assured. By reasonable, I don't mean "NASA reasonable", which is very... unreasonable. Besides all that, these people would be volunteers. I strongly oppose the right of governments to prevent well-informed consenting adults from risking their lives in outer space. It's none of the governments' business.

---

Although this particular project is most likely a publicity stunt, I don't think the general idea behind it is wrong. It may actually turn out to be the only viable way of reaching Mars if the government-funded space programmes continue to underperform in the human spaceflight department.

 

[History_Buff]

Winner, I'm just 90% sure it's going to fizzle out. If it were a video game, it would already reek of vapourware.

I haven't seen the video - I'm on my phone, but I thought radiation was a serious concern for long term settlement, seeing that Mars is lacking earth's protective magnetic field.

I also think bone weakness would be a big deal, especially when factoring in the forces needed to manage entry into Mars' thin atmosphere.

It's tough to say, because we don't have reliable surface measurements, but essentially for every 2-3 years they spend on the surface, they're probably looking at a 1% over 30 years risk of cancer. More for women, and possibly more risk of eye damage.

You certainly wouldn't want to stay in orbit, but even having that thin atmosphere helps a lot. Throw sandbags on top of your hab and you're even better. GCRs are your only real concern (and flares on the way out, but you can shield for that).

 

[Winner]

Winner, I'm just 90% sure it's going to fizzle out. If it were a video game, it would already reek of vapourware

Did you miss the part where I said the chance of this going anywhere is 0.1%?

It's tough to say, because we don't have reliable surface measurements, but essentially for every 2-3 years they spend on the surface, they're probably looking at a 1% over 30 years risk of cancer. More for women, and possibly more risk of eye damage.

You certainly wouldn't want to stay in orbit, but even having that thin atmosphere helps a lot. Throw sandbags on top of your hab and you're even better. GCRs are your only real concern (and flares on the way out, but you can shield for that).

Indeed - but GCR is also partially reduced on the surface of Mars - it is halved simply because you have a planet underneath you obscuring half your celestial sphere, and even the thin atmosphere helps to reduce the rest.

The bottom line, radiation most likely isn't a show stopper. Many people who insist on 99.99999% safety, however, keep bringing it up as if it made manned Mars exploration impossible.

 

[peter grimes]

I finally had to google GCR, since I it's been in several posts now and I couldn't figure out the acronym. I just knew them as 'Cosmic Rays'. But does the 'Galactic' part distinguish them from other types of 'Cosmic Rays'?.. Doesn't really make sense to me. Sort of like saying 'PIN Number' or 'ATM Machine'

I had thought the real risk of radiation exposure was not from GCR but from solar emissions?

Also, any thoughts on the concerns I raised about muscle and bone atrophy? Or were they planning on getting to Mars in only a few months, rather than the fuel-efficient 2.x years?

 

[Winner]

I finally had to google GCR, since I it's been in several posts now and I couldn't figure out the acronym. I just knew them as 'Cosmic Rays'. But does the 'Galactic' part distinguish them from other types of 'Cosmic Rays'?.. Doesn't really make sense to me. Sort of like saying 'PIN Number' or 'ATM Machine'

I had thought the real risk of radiation exposure was not from GCR but from solar emissions?

Also, any thoughts on the concerns I raised about muscle and bone atrophy? Or were they planning on getting to Mars in only a few months, rather than the fuel-efficient 2.x years?

Galactic Cosmic Rays are very high-energy particles coming to our Solar System from the rest of our Galaxy or sources far beyond it. They are bad news because it's almost impossible to shield against them - you'd need metres of lead to block them out completely.

BTW, it seems that GCR isn't that strong during period of Solar maximums, because the Sun's magnetosphere partially shields against them. In the past, planners usually wanted to fly to Mars during solar minimums in order to reduce the risk of the spaceship being hit by a bad solar proton event. However, this is something we can relatively easily shield against, so perhaps it would make sense to travel when Sun is at its most active to reduce the dose from GCR exposure.

The most propellant efficient way of going to Mars is (near) Hohmann transfer orbit, which depending on various trade-offs takes between 6 to 8 months. If your mission is one way trip (so-called "Mars to Stay" mission configuration), then muscle atrophy/bone matter loss isn't such big deal. It's basically equivalent to one ISS crew rotation, so if you exercise and eat properly, you should be perfectly capable of walking on Mars in its 0.38 g environment. If you use some kind of a simulated gravity technology, then your crew is perfectly fine on that front.

 

[History_Buff]

Did you miss the part where I said the chance of this going anywhere is 0.1%?

I probably read it, but then forgot

I finally had to google GCR, since I it's been in several posts now and I couldn't figure out the acronym. I just knew them as 'Cosmic Rays'. But does the 'Galactic' part distinguish them from other types of 'Cosmic Rays'?.. Doesn't really make sense to me. Sort of like saying 'PIN Number' or 'ATM Machine'

I had thought the real risk of radiation exposure was not from GCR but from solar emissions?

Also, any thoughts on the concerns I raised about muscle and bone atrophy? Or were they planning on getting to Mars in only a few months, rather than the fuel-efficient 2.x years?

Sorry, I meant to address this stuff before, got side tracked. I think GCR means the really intergalactic stuff, typically to the exclusion of solar rays. They are very different things, owing to energy levels. If memory serves, normal solar radiation tends to be on the order of millions of volts, flares on the order of billions of volts, and GCRs likely in the trillions of volts range.

As for bone atrophy and such: you don't do a 2.x year flight, you do 6-8 months, like Winner said. And oddly enough, the 2.x year flight saves a trivial amount of fuel (since you need to haul more supplies), and exposes the crew to far more radiation (since you go much closer to the sun). The 8 month conjunctive (Hohmann transfer) path is clearly the superior choice.

It's also fairly simple to spin your capsule on a tether to achieve artificial gravity, which prevents the problem altogether.

If you're looking for a good read on all this, I'd recommend The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin, which lays out the Mars Direct plan in detail. You could also just go read about Mars Direct on wikipedia, but you lose all the good detaily stuff.

 

[Murky]

Wrong thread.

 

[Winner]

This guy has a good philosophical point.

Two things:

1) Why are you posting it in this thread?
2) That guy is trying to be smart, but his argument is incredibly stupid.

 

[Murky]

Two things:

1) Why are you posting it in this thread?
2) That guy is trying to be smart, but his argument is incredibly stupid.

Oops. Posted to wrong thread.

 

[Patroklos]

A few days old...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/18/x-37b-finally-touches-down/

X-37B finally touches down, completing its not-so-secret classified mission (video)

After more than a year of circling the globe, the US Air Force's X-37B has finally touched down at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The unmanned, reusable space plane spent 469 days in orbit, performing a number of experiments (many of which are classified) before finally ending its lengthy run Saturday. What exactly the military has learned from the extended orbital excursion is unclear, but, like the Mars rovers before it, the X-37B turned out to be far more robust than many had anticipated. Its mission was originally intended to last just nine months, but its operators managed to milk about six more months out of the craft.

Basically the mission was conducting functional testing and materials research on the reliability of vehicles after prolonged exposure to "the elements" so to say. We have had vehicles in space far longer than this, but they generally are not required to reenter and exit an atmosphere over and over again after such exposure.

 

[Winner]

An all-military mini-shuttle. I fail to see its significance beyond USAF's finally succeeding in undermining the civilian space programme.

 

[Patroklos]

I was under the impression you were interested in the advancement of space based technology, but perhaps I was mistaken? Don't let your ideological biases get in the way of progress.

And given that this is now a tried and proven successful design, they are planning on upscaling it to the X-47C for transport of astronauts. This is clearly the best avenue for the US to return to human spaceflight, and is the most promising new human spaceflight vehicle of any space program at the moment.

http://www.gizmag.com/x37b-manned-spaceplane/20175/