You are not logged in.
Constellation Battles the Blogosphere
Offline
Like button can go here
Wow Bill, thanks for that post about the Mars Society comments on Glenn. Lunar Tollbooth for sure! Lunar freaking tollbooth.
God speed John Glenn !
Offline
Like button can go here
Constellation Battles the Blogosphere
Great stuff.
Offline
Like button can go here
Former NASA Astronaut and US Senator, John Glenn was at NASA Headquarters to tape an interview about the Mercury Program
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasti … 70202.html
Offline
Like button can go here
Offline
Like button can go here
Mars Direct - Program For The Next Big Step
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=43391
A trip to another planet is something all space agencies have dreamed about for a long time. Mars Direct is the most promising program.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Like button can go here
The present plans are just priming the pump.
Lot of talk before the new space race starts.
The country that dominates space will control events,
similar to British control, during the colonial period.
The latest question is who can afford it ?
Offline
Like button can go here
“The argument that the Moon is a necessary training base for eventual manned expeditions to Mars is flatly unpersuasive,” says Gavin, who directed development of the first manned spacecraft ever to land on another body in space.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Like button can go here
A man, a plan, a planet: Mars Direct
Offline
Like button can go here
“The argument that the Moon is a necessary training base for eventual manned expeditions to Mars is flatly unpersuasive,” says Gavin, who directed development of the first manned spacecraft ever to land on another body in space.
I don't agree. Just another Griffin basher.
Offline
Like button can go here
The Mars Society bad an announcement criticizing the latest bill, saying how the language counterproductive to running a coherent multiyear exploration plan.
The new Shuttle date will new date will give engineers more time to work on the orbiter's troublesome fuel sensor system.
Mars by 2037 ? We ain't going there anytime soon
Offline
Like button can go here
Those few lines in the giant omnibus appropriations bill (that no one probably read) preventing funding solely for human Mars mission make no sense and won't affect NASA's plans this year. It's hard to see that language being repeated next year.
2037 is a no later than date if funding stays at the same level. Be sure that Griffin and NASA are doing everything they can to make it happen sooner ... 2030 has also been mentioned. With more funding that date could be moved up to 2025 at least. Keep pushing!
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Unfortunately I think NASA will take a sideline for more 'important issues' like HealthCare, Politics, Economics, Iraq etc
People will also be more concerned about a sliding dollar and the recent trend of rising oil prices
If CEV proves to be a slightly overgrown Soyuz, with fancy new computers and a sleek sexy shape but unable to move significant mass to LEO; and
If all shuttle derived infrastructure is left to rot;
come 2025 or 2030 we will be starting from scratch, even if some astronauts spend a few weeks or months living in tents on the moon.
I know there are many who are NOT fans of Ares-I. What are the chances of the next US President supporting a Direct-to-Mars style program ? McCain might back Mars and he sounds like the kind of guy who wouldn't take no for an answer.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Like button can go here
Shuttle successor flawed, dangerous, GAO report finds
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/spa … 9196.story
Constellation program -- the successor to the aging space shuttle -- faces critical problems and might never work as intended, according to a congressional report set for release today.
The report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, ticks off a list of difficult issues, especially with the Ares I rocket, which it said is prone to violent shaking on liftoff and might not have enough power to reach orbit with a capsule full of astronauts.
In fact, according to GAO, the whole project is dogged by such "considerable unknowns" that it is doubtful whether NASA's request for an additional $2 billion during the next two years will be enough to overcome design flaws and speed its development for a first liftoff before 2015.
"We do not know yet whether the architecture and design solutions selected by NASA will work as intended," says the 20-page report, obtained Wednesday by the Orlando Sentinel. It will be presented today at a congressional hearing that is taking a critical look at NASA's plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.
The GAO identified several areas that could delay Constellation:
*The Orion crew capsule is too heavy for Ares' lifting capacity. "Both the Orion and Ares I vehicles have a history of weight and mass growth," the report says.
*Ares is subject to excessive vibration, called thrust oscillation, which has the potential of shaking the spacecraft to pieces, killing anyone aboard. NASA claims to have a fix for this problem, which was previously reported.
*So far, no company is capable of producing a heat shield big enough to protect the Orion capsule when it re-enters Earth's atmosphere. Proposals to use thermal tiles like the ones on the shuttle are still in the design stage.
*"According to NASA, at this time, existing test facilities are insufficient to adequately test the Ares I and Orion systems."
In effect, the report says, NASA has a design for the Constellation project -- but as yet there is no assurance that all the components will work as planned.
The criticism comes at a crucial time for the agency. NASA must finish the international space station before it retires the space-shuttle fleet in 2010, while at the same time developing new spacecraft that can go to the moon and possibly Mars. The pressures are proving difficult to manage.
The report and the hearing come two days after an announcement that more than 8,000 workers nationwide -- including 6,400 at Kennedy Space Center -- could lose their jobs when the shuttle era ends.
Several lawmakers have attacked NASA for not planning the transition better. Of particular concern is the five-year gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the first planned Ares launch in 2015. During that time, NASA will have to pay Russia to launch American astronauts to the space station.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Like button can go here
This report has already been discussed here - the words "dangerous" and "flawed" do not appear in the report. It's a total misrepresentation of the report - they'll publish anything to make news.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
I kinda get the feeling that someone at the GAO has it in for NASA, probably viewing the space program as a colossal "waste" of money. In which case, their shallow, not-in-depth investigations dig up the worst information, even rumor like the Orion's mass problem.
As I have said before, political capital is just as important to NASA as the kind that comes on green paper, and the GAO is trying to get the latter by attacking the former.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
The report is quite reasonable, it lists the top risk items and the usual project management concerns. What's unreasonable is the rewriting of the report's findings by this article and slapping such a misleading headline on the story. But hey that's what the media do.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
There was an article in NewScientist that was critical of Bush's Moon/Mars plan, but the alternative presented had some other side trips, the author of the article wanted us to do things in the Earth/Sun L1 and L2 points. L2 in particular is in permanent shadow of the Earth, so is considered an excellent place for space telescopes affording a near full view of the sky at all times with the glare of the Sun conveniently blocked out.
It also mentioned launching Mars missions from L2, he basically considered L2 as a staging area for the assemply of the interplanetary spaceship to take the crew to Mars eliminating the need for Ares V rocket launches, and he called for intermediate space tugs to provide access to the L2 point so assembly for the Mars mission can begin. I for one fail to see the advantage in doing it this way for the Mars mission. Exploring the Moon will provide us with experience in manned exploration of planetary bodies, operating and maintaining a space telescope with manned crews at L2 will not.
An Ares V rocket is capable of reaching L2, it can be used as a space tug, we don't need an intermediate vehicle that goes between Low Earth Orbit and L2 and another vehicle that goes between L2 and Mars, at least not initially. What I do think L2 is good for is prepositioning the unmanned part of the spaceship. Say we use a low ion drive to save on propellent mass, so we can have more cargo, such a ship can take its time getting to L2, and then another rocket such as an Ares V can take the crew to L2 when its time to depart, the two vehicles would dock, and launch from L2 to Mars., but I don't think actually building the spaceship in L2 makes sense.
Offline
Like button can go here
There was an article in NewScientist that was critical of Bush's Moon/Mars plan, but the alternative presented had some other side trips, the author of the article wanted us to do things in the Earth/Sun L1 and L2 points. L2 in particular is in permanent shadow of the Earth, so is considered an excellent place for space telescopes affording a near full view of the sky at all times with the glare of the Sun conveniently blocked out.
LOL. Did NS really publish that? Surely they couldn't be so ignorant, but given their increasing political position on science it's not surprising. Earth's shadow doesn't even reach L2.
Using L2 as a staging area is daft. Assembling sufficient mass at L2 without an Ares V is even dafter. The boiloff problem kills it. Let alone trying to put together all the pieces robotically and checking it out. Using people will only add enormous cost.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
To be fair the one redeeming quality of the L2 point is that its permanently in Earth's shadow, now that you mention the boil-off problem.
It is bound to be very cold at L2, cryogenic fuels would probably boil off less if kept in Earth's shadow as opposed to being exposed to sunlight every 45 minutes. Getting there requires a significant booster in itself though.
But assembling things in space is expensive, and should be done only when there is no alternative, such as when there is no launch vehicle that's big enough to lift the whole thing into orbit at once. Any assembly that done at all should occur in low Earth orbit and with as few pieces as possible. Apollo did not pause at any of the lagrange points, and I see no reason why we should do so just to conserve fuel. An economic analysis is required to determine what is best to do, it is not a simply matter of conserving propellent or energy. My feeling is the more work that is done on the ground before flight, the cheaper the mission is going to be, at least for the forseeable future.
Offline
Like button can go here
To be fair the one redeeming quality of the L2 point is that its permanently in Earth's shadow, now that you mention the boil-off problem.
cIclops to Major Tom: L2 is not in Earth's shadow.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
To be fair the one redeeming quality of the L2 point is that its permanently in Earth's shadow, now that you mention the boil-off problem.
cIclops to Major Tom: L2 is not in Earth's shadow.
Tell me where I went wrong. There are two sets of Lagrange points when dealing with Earth, there is Earth-Sun and Earth Moon.
For the Earth-Moon System L1 is the point where Earth's gravity cancels the Moon's gravity, that's not what we're talking about, L2 is behind the point and is the point where Earth gravity plus the Moons gravity cancels out centrifugal force out behind the Moon as seen from Earth. L3 is on the opposite side of the Moon's orbit from the Moon and L4 is 60 degrees ahead of the Moon in the Moon's orbit and L5 is 60 degrees behind the Moon along its orbit.
For the Earth-Sun system there is another set of Langrange points, in this system L1 is where the Sun's gravity cancels out the Earth's gravity and is therefore between the Earth and the Sun. L2 is where the Sun's gravity plus the Earth gravity cancels our centrifugal force out behind the Earth as seen from the Sun, consequently with the Earth between the Sun and L2, this point receives some shade, I don't know if the Earth is big enough to completely block out the Sun at this distance, but I heard its 4 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon and the Moon is one quarter the size of Earth, so it must be close as the Moon's apparent diameter from Earth is apparently the same as the Sun's. L3 is of little consequence as it is on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth, and L4 and L5 are of little import as well, since they are 60 degrees ahead and behind and 1 AU away from the Earth, there may be a few small asteroids caught there, but who knows.
Offline
Like button can go here
Perseverance rover proves we can reliably produce oxygen on Mars
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/ne … en-on-mars
Michael Collins: “I could have been the last person to walk on the moon”
https://news.mit.edu/2015/michael-colli … nding-0402
Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins disagrees with NASA's planned Moon return: 'We should shoot directly for Mars'
https://www.foxnews.com/science/apollo- … llins-mars
Offline
Like button can go here
It has been a long time and seems that we cannot even solve a hydrogen leak....
Offline
Like button can go here
Mars Is Calling: NASA Chief Delivers Inspiring Message On JFK's Moon Speech Anniversary
https://www.republicworld.com/science/s … eshow.html
Missed this one, 11 days late
60 years ago today, JFK gave his famous “We choose to go to the Moon" speech at Rice University.
https://astronomy.com/news/2022/09/we-c … ity-speech
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-24 17:42:24)
Offline
Like button can go here