Small Asteroid Passing by Earth
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s … -this-week
Former astronaut says it’s “extremely important” to study artificial gravity
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/f … l-gravity/
"We have nothing in between one and zero."
A little more than 15 years ago, astronaut Garrett Reisman was among a crew of seven who launched into orbit aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour. The shuttle remained attached to the Space Station for nearly two weeks, but when the orbiter departed, it left Reisman behind for an extended stay.
During his time at the station, Reisman would often pass through the Harmony module, which serves as a corridor connecting laboratory modules built by NASA and the European and Japanese space agencies. Sometimes, he would look up and see a small placard that said, "To CAM." The arrow, however, pointed out into space.
"When I was up there on the space station, there was still the sign that says, 'To CAM,'" Reisman said in an interview. "But there's just a closed hatch. It was tragic. It was just kind of taunting me when I saw that because I think that could have been one of the most important scientific discoveries that we made."
The "CAM" was the Centrifuge Accommodation Module, originally built by the Japanese space agency. It was intended to provide an environment for artificial gravity experiments, from just slightly above zero gravity all the way to 2 gs. However, NASA canceled the final development and launch of the centrifuge module in 2005 due to budgetary concerns.
https://twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status … 6461521920
'Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost team had a chance to climb inside the initial HALO module mock-up framework.'
]]>I agree with that statement, as does Buzz Aldrin.
NASA still hasn't adequately addressed the issues of Solar Flare radiation, nor have they made any efforts to include artificial gravity through centripetal acceleration (incorporation of tethers). They are overlooking several of the salient issues remaining--as is Elon. But Elon is a fast learner, and once he sees the problem, he's a fixer and a doer. NASA is mired in bureaucracy and stodgy mindsets.
]]>Yes, the manned Mars mission was "on the books" for the NASA of the 1960's. Before the moon flights, the manned Mars mission was planned for the 1983 opposition. By the time Nixon killed Apollo in 1972, it had been pushed back to the 1987 opposition.
The baseline design was assembled in orbit at about 4 million pounds, powered by the NERVA nuclear rocket being tested 1958-1973 at Jackass Flats, Nevada. The backup was all-chemical at 12 million pounds as assembled in orbit. NERVA was ready for its initial flight test as an alternative 3rd stage for Saturn-5 when Nixon killed Apollo. NASA then killed NERVA because "who needs the rocket if we aren't going to go?" (They had already killed the nuclear explosion propulsion designs they got from the Air Force, as being a competitor for the NERVA that they preferred.)
Ultimately, THAT is why we are still flying only chemical rockets today.
The Mars craft was based on Apollo with a crew habitat resembling some of the designs for Skylab. It had the interior space to keep the crew sane in confinement. It lacked spin gravity, and it lacked a solar flare radiation shield. (I don't know what the lander looked like.) So in hindsight, it seems likely any crew going this way would have died of microgravity disease and/or radiation poisoning. But yes, there was a plan to go!
And no, I quite agree that the NASA of today is NOT the NASA that sent Apollo to the moon.
GW
]]>Some news items
NASA Prepares Its Artemis Gateway to Orbit the Moon
https://eos.org/articles/nasa-prepares- … t-the-moon
Why can’t we just put a space station on the Moon already?
https://thenextweb.com/news/why-cant-we … yndication
six companies are competing to develop a prototype deep space habitat that could be used in cislunar space.
I think a Mars station makes sense as humanity would have no humans in orbit if people were on the ground needing something above them in orbit. The Moon however already has a satellite called planet Earth so in a ways its a pity Trump was not his usual stubborn, annoying, hotheaded self and pit he had not went ahead and cancelled the Gateway, which seems to be more of a politically launched station than a one of real need.
]]>Agency Administrator Bill Nelson on Wednesday said the $2.9 billion contract awarded to SpaceX for the Artemis program marked the beginning of what would be a series of ambitious projects to return often to the moon.
The committee hearing was on NASA's 2022 budget request for $24.8 billion, a 6.6% increase over its 2021 budget.
The agency had requested $3.4 billion for the competition, but was handed $850 million in appropriations instead
NASA is a different agency than an agency who had a mission to beat the Russians to the Moon in the 1960s, much of the excitement today is about the Us Private Sector.
Elon Musk announces SpaceX Starship set for Mars will launch from OCEAN
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ … -Texas-ont
China's 'bold breakthroughs' in space go beyond Mars and the moon
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-05-28/chi … d-the-moon
ESA chief says Europe’s space program risks losing out to China, USA
https://www.laprensalatina.com/esa-chie … china-usa/
Could Mars have been done in the 60s and 1970s, von Braun and JFK discussed it but it is not known if they could have asked for such a mission, Apollo got the United States to the Moon and history will always remember the US as the first. NASA and Soviet Union remained in LEO for the past 50 years, other groups and countries have space programs, Japan, European, India says it will have a manned program, only Musk and China seem to have an ambition for people on Mars.
There have been 12 US Presidents and a 'Vision' for NASA
what has changed...i guess rather than a human colony on Mars you have a 'Space Force?
No surprise with their past track record...NASA chooses not to tell Congress how much deep space missions cost
This week, the US Government Accountability Office reported on progress the space agency is making to prepare the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and launch systems at Kennedy Space Center for future missions. NASA is making progress on these complex integration activities, the report finds, but the space agency has a long ways to go to make a test flight in late 2019 or early 2020. One surprise in the report is that NASA still has not provided Congress (or anyone else) with cost estimates for the first crewed mission of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, which could occur in 2023 or later. This "Exploration Mission 2," which would entail flying a crew of four into deep space
One surprise in the report is that NASA still has not provided Congress (or anyone else) with cost estimates for the first crewed mission of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, which could occur in 2023 or later. This "Exploration Mission 2," which would entail flying a crew of four into deep space and possibly delivering the first component of a space station into lunar orbit, would mark the first human mission after 12 years of development of the rocket and nearly two decades of work on Orion.
So we will kick the can down the road why Finally, some details about how NASA actually plans to get to Mars emerges but the really problem is NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
]]>As far as doing anything on the moon is concerned, Gateway has little, if any, technological relevance. Why go there and make your voyage longer, if you can go straight to the moon quicker? Something in orbit around the moon might make sense, until and unless the vehicles make direct landings. If Musk has his way, they will.
Gateway ONLY makes sense to me as (1) corporate welfare for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, and (2) a political tie to the Russians. And (3) as a budgetary excuse not to take on the risk and expense of going to Mars with men. There is no lander that could travel from Gateway to the lunar surface and back, something more demanding than a lander from low lunar orbit to the surface and back. Until there is, of what use is Gateway to doing anything on the moon? I see no use.
Unless they do the solar storm radiation shelter "right", they'll kill a crew on Gateway with lethal radiation exposure. Does anyone see any indication in any of the Boeing or Lockheed-Martin designs they will address that risk? I don't. Adding a little plastic hull lining to Orion won't protect those crews from solar storm radiation, either. It's too thin to serve, and no room or weight allowance (in an already overweight capsule) to add enough to do the job.
Musk's IAC presentation does address the radiation shelter issue, although his earlier Guadalajara presentation did not. If the BFR actually flies the way he projects, those crews may actually be safe enough for any destination outside the Van Allen Belts.
I had assumed the design requirements for a manned interplanetary transport vehicle were different enough from an atmospheric lander to justify separate designs, and basing from orbit at both the moon and Mars. Musk's team obviously doesn't think so. We'll see who's closer to right eventually, but the odds seem to favor them, at least at the BFR scale.
GW
Lockheed has started the project by using the already built method and going forward with retrofitting it for use with the ISS module that they are using.
]]>But since we can land, offload, and lift off with out using precious lunar fluids, I'm not sure if it is relevant anymore.
]]>