VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-07-18 12:10:27

GW-

Yes, the SLS/Orion system is a congressional mandate; at the time, there was not a viable option for deep space flight put forward after cancellation of the Constellation program. This obviously pissed off certain Senators and Congresscritters in the states impacted by Constellation's cancellation. Let's simply redirect the pork procurement in a new direction wherein it may do some actual good. This means giving Lockheed-Martin, ULA, and Boeing something useful to do with all their experienced engineers; cut the internal auditors/bean counters from the porky SLS project. Yeah, I know; that's just too damned rational for elected officials to grasp.

RR

kbd512 · 2017-07-18 18:47:10

A good example of a cost-plus contract that I would happily fund would be development of ion thrusters for atmospheric flight. If the 110N/kw that was achievable in MIT's lab experiments can be generated on a larger scale, then gas turbine engines would quickly become obsolete technology for atmospheric propulsion. The benefit to NASA would be far less propellant consumption to achieve soft landing on Earth, Mars, or other planetary bodies with atmospheres. Missions to Venus, Mars, and Titan would become much easier to achieve.

elderflower · 2017-07-27 14:16:29

Been for a sail. Back home now.
The proposal for an electric thruster brings something to mind: if one of these uses Hydrogen as a propellant the higher average molecular weight of Hydrogen on Mars (due to the increased concentration of Deuterium) must have an adverse effect on specific impulse. It wouldn't be significant in a chemical rocket where the exhaust is largely water or heavier molecules, but in a Nuclear or electrical one using Hydrogen it might be noticeable.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-07-27 15:02:13

Sorry folks, but I'm gonna be a negative Norbert about all these electric thrusters, etc. Why?

Let's get to the fundamental issue: power. If we consider the spacecraft as a closed thermodynamic system, the available energy (Enthalpy) available is converted to kinetic energy. In the case of a chemical rocket, that is the onboard fuel supply. In order to have an open system, a solar array, available power is determined by the array's size. The limit to power is now based on the conversion of solar electric to kinetic energy through ejection of ions. Sooner or later the vessel runs out of gas, and the solar arrays don't do anything more. This seems to me to be something of a Red Herring--neither fish nor fowl. To make electric powered vehicles at all feasible we need more than solar electric. The farther from Sol that we go, the worse the problem becomes. This is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-07-27 15:23:03)

Terraformer · 2017-07-27 16:27:40

How far can microwave beams take us? The rectanna should mass a lot less than a solar array, and we can get a higher power intensity with a much greater conversion efficiency, right?

SpaceNut · 2017-07-27 16:59:31

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-japan-spa … nergy.html

Researchers used microwaves to deliver 1.8 kilowatts of power—enough to run an electric kettle—through the air with pinpoint accuracy to a receiver 55 metres (170 feet) away.

Microwave Power Transmission – A Next Generation Power Transmission System

Wireless Power Transmission: From Far-Field to Near-Field

GW Johnson · 2017-07-27 19:02:02

So how do you go from 10^3 meters to 10^11 meters?

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2017-07-28 11:07:15

GW-
Hope springs eternal that the Laws of Physics may yet be repealed. Tightly focused microwaves still obey the inverse-square laws, and the energy dissipated. I've never seen the Laws of Thermodynamics disobeyed either.

kbd512 · 2017-07-28 18:20:36

If the universe doesn't work the way someone thought it did, then it obviously wasn't a "law", merely something that's "generally true".

SpaceNut · 2017-11-27 20:05:58

Crickets.... churp....what more silience...

SpaceNut · 2017-12-11 20:59:43

Well its official as Trump instructs NASA to return astronauts to moon in new directive. Monday intended to "refocus the space program on human exploration and discovery," President Donald Trump instructed NASA to return American astronauts to the moon, alluded to an "eventual mission to Mars" and promised to "restore American leadership in space."

Flanked by NASA leadership and three astronauts, including former Sen. Jack Schmitt, one of the most recent men to have walked on the moon, Trump described the directive, portraying space exploration as an encapsulation of America's "pioneering spirit."

"Today, the same spirit beckons us to begin new journeys of exploration and discovery, to lift our eyes all of the way up to the heavens and once again imagine the possibilities waiting in those big, beautiful stars if we dare to dream big and that's what our country is doing again," he said. "We're dreaming big."

Echoing astronaut Neil Armstrong's first words upon stepping foot on the moon's surface in 1969, the president called the directive -- which codifies instructions that NASA "return American astronauts to the moon" as "national policy," according to Vice President Mike Pence -- a "giant step" toward an "inspiring future."

Both Trump and Pence further argued that investment in the space program would lead to increased job creation, innovation and military applications.

In a release noting highlights of the administration's space policy, the White House said Trump would "create incentives for private industry" to assist in pursuing its goals of exploration and the development of new technology.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-12 00:22:49

Click image for YouTube video of said announcement.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-12-13 14:11:23

Maybe this Presidential Directive will get us out of LEO? Hopefully will bypass this stupid DSG, and go for the gusto? The DSG isn't really "going somewhere," but just another point or orbit in space--not a final destination. NASA should really be asking for proposals by various contractors, including SpaceX and Orbital ATK.

kbd512 · 2017-12-14 15:30:17

Why does DSG have to be a "pathway to nowhere"?

Why can't we just spec out a Mars Transit Vehicle as the DSG and then build and test that?

Gotta get there and Orion won't work for that use case. Maybe someone or everyone should simply offer the "right design" (hint, hint) for the DSG and then offer those designs to NASA as what they're willing to build for the agency to use.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-14 18:03:15

While Lockheed is making use of the past module designs to which Cynus is the current but the issue is Lockheed and not the use of the leveraging point. I would simply pay for the company to design up from that base with the guts provided to them for integration to make the final product. Until Space X or Beoing gives us a human rated capsule we are stuck with Orion. Of course DreamChaser is there for crew but that means the iss would be used as the terminal for crews joining up with the DSG and returning from its use. The size of the DSG is variable for the destination by adding on other modules and more boosters for departure and return from that destination intended.

GW Johnson · 2017-12-14 21:19:16

From what I read coming from various sources, Mr. Trump has directed NASA to go back to the moon, making use of SLS/Orion and the new DSG project, which is still getting negotiated with other countries. Mars is "eventually", code for "we hope never". That means NASA is to favor "old space". It goes along with all the other corporate welfare, extreme deregulation, and massive tax breaks for the rich giant international corporations that Mr. Trump has been up to.

There's DSG, which IS NOT a space ship nor even an experimental prototype for one, and there is DST (Deep Space Transport), which is a relatively unformed concept being worked up as "old space" corporate welfare. DST is a mobile astronaut habitat intended to be part of a spaceship, with some sort of scaled-up electric propulsion, reputedly in the 400-500 KW class. As near as I can tell, artificial gravity IS NOT a part of DST, nor is it a part of DSG. I'm not sure solar flare radiation shielding is a part of either DSG or DST.

DSG is nothing but another ISS, this time in orbit about the moon. It's nothing but an international money pit. So if you thought ISS was too much $$$ to build (using the wrong, very expensive launcher), wait till you see what DSG is going to cost, since baseline is using SLS to put it there about the moon. There will be only DSG, no real commercial launcher or spacecraft, no Mars, not even much of a planetary probe program anymore.

Plus all this "back-to-the-moon" stuff is still a fantasy, since without an adequate service module, SLS-Orion is incapable of entering lunar orbit the way Apollo 8 did, and there is as yet no talk about any sort of lander. Very expensive fantasy, but only a fantasy. Corporate welfare for "old space". Nothing more.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2017-12-14 23:20:04

I really cannot figure out where this DSG even came from--as a concept. It's intellectually bankrupt, with no redeeming features! No measures taken for generation of artificial gravity, no protection against solar flare events, and is certainly NOT a destination.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-15 02:13:55

GW Johnson wrote:

without an adequate service module, SLS-Orion is incapable of entering lunar orbit the way Apollo 8 did, and there is as yet no talk about any sort of lander.

Orion can enter orbit with SLS block 1B. That will be used for EM2, not EM1. The exploration upper stage (EUS) will be used to enter lunar orbit. But you're right about the lander.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I really cannot figure out where this DSG even came from--as a concept. It's intellectually bankrupt, with no redeeming features! No measures taken for generation of artificial gravity, no protection against solar flare events, and is certainly NOT a destination.

Some people at NASA are still trying to execute the 90 Day Report from 1989. At the time Congress took one look at the price tag and said "No way in hell!" But some in NASA have never accepted that. The 90 Day Report includes a second space station to act as a shipyard to construct the Mars craft. It's become obvious that isn't necessary, but they really really want their second space station. And those in NASA working on SLS were worried there's no manifest. They needed something for SLS to launch. They don't have artificial gravity, or aerocapture, or ISPP, or several technologies needed for Mars, so consider Mars to be not viable. But they just finished building ISS, so consider stations a known and safe project. So they want a new station. Not to do anything, but simply as justification for SLS.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-12-15 10:00:30

At NASA, the inmates seem to be running the asylum; they have had their internal planners, and the Zubrin/Baker Mars Direct plans as the "not invented here" concept. It seems that bureaucratic inertia and arrogance has won the day, as Rob points out in the above post. The SLS and Orion capsule concept just is an extension of the 90 Day Plan proposed--and rejected--previously. The problem of "not invented here" continues to be the real issue, and not the underlying technology.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-25 20:43:47

Independant study of the warp drive engine says that it does not work...

NASA: Commercial Partners Key to Sustainable Moon Presence

As NASA shifts human exploration back to the Moon, U.S. commercial partnerships will be a key to expediting missions and building a sustainable presence on the lunar surface.
The agency is orchestrating a robotic lunar campaign with a focus on growing commercial base of partnerships and activity that can support U.S. science, technology, and exploration objectives.
Resource Prospector and determined all four instruments are at a high technology readiness level, are appropriate for science on the Moon, and will make flights on future Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) missions

The same name as what got cancelled just before Bridenstine took over....

Space Policy Directive-2 Ignored By Space Organizations Only the Commercial Spaceflight Federation and the Aerospace Industries Association have issued a statement. You have to wonder about the depth of commitment to commercial space from these space organizations when they cannot even bother to lift a finger to say thank you when the White House does them a big favor.

SpaceNut · 2019-03-27 19:36:07

Its not going to be 2028 Nasa but instead 2024 or lose the race back to the moon....

elderflower · 2019-03-29 03:57:11

Boots is not enough. We need engineers, biologists and geologists for early days exploration. Making boot prints and installing a flag is an expensive sideshow.

SpaceNut · 2019-03-31 15:40:03

For the past 15 years, America has sought to put its astronauts back on the Moon, but NASA did not think it could be done before 2028 and even changed the ships designs and architecture of being able to achieve this many times.

Of course the timeframe is anything but ironclad, and would force the US space agency to upend its usual work practices and take serious risks..

The space agency has already spent $23 billion developing its new heavy-lift rocket (the Space Launch System, which is being built by aerospace giant Boeing), the Orion capsule to transport the astronauts (built by Lockheed Martin) and ground installations since changing back to the SSME engines and Orions.

Of course that ignores the other 10 billion wasted on the first incantations of a rocket for moon use plus all of the other stuff needed to be able to stay on the moon.

Congress has granted it $4 billion for 2019 which is not all that much above what it has been getting to start with.

All of the nasa work still goes back to the contracts and contractors which have not produced a rocket that can fly for all of the sums to which its been paid..

GW Johnson · 2019-03-31 17:03:57

You will get flags-and-footprints from agency heads afraid to do anything they haven't done before, and that does not include what previous generations did before. Flags-and-footprints won a space race, but did little-or-nothing toward bases off Earth.

You get enormous sums of money wasted when you let politicians set uncoordinated objectives with penny-pinched budgets, overseen by government agencies that never had to be efficient about anything in their contracting, and still discriminate in favor of favored contractors, despite all the evidence against them.

That's a recipe for very costly flags-and-footprints. Not bases and settlements.

Which is why I put little faith in NASA ever going to Mars, and not much in it actually returning to the moon, except as another flags-and-footprints stunt.

GW

elderflower · 2019-04-09 10:48:10

My money's on Musk or the Chinese, not NASA, not ESA, not Russia. And the Chinese will probably just do boots and flags for the political rewards.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2017-07-18 12:10:27

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#27 2017-07-18 18:47:10

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#28 2017-07-27 14:16:29

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#29 2017-07-27 15:02:13

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#30 2017-07-27 16:27:40

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#31 2017-07-27 16:59:31

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#32 2017-07-27 19:02:02

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#33 2017-07-28 11:07:15

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#34 2017-07-28 18:20:36

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#35 2017-11-27 20:05:58

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#36 2017-12-11 20:59:43

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#37 2017-12-12 00:22:49

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#38 2017-12-13 14:11:23

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#39 2017-12-14 15:30:17

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#40 2017-12-14 18:03:15

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#41 2017-12-14 21:19:16

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#42 2017-12-14 23:20:04

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#43 2017-12-15 02:13:55

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#44 2017-12-15 10:00:30

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#45 2018-05-25 20:43:47

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#46 2019-03-27 19:36:07

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#47 2019-03-29 03:57:11

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#48 2019-03-31 15:40:03

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#49 2019-03-31 17:03:57

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

#50 2019-04-09 10:48:10

Re: VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.

Board footer