New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Human missions » SLS and what asteriod will we go to » 2014-03-31 03:18:28

GW Johnson wrote:

A logical question:  how is using only circumlunar-capable manned technology a "steppingstone along the way to Mars"?


Short answer: making sure the space toilet meant for 3 years use doesn't epically fail on day 3.  What makes this more frightening is the fact astronauts often traditionally have beans before launch for good luck much as JPL people have peanuts.  Put these factors together and if you have the option of running back home for a replacement...lord do you ever want that liberty.

Long answer: Basically same reason as the space station was originally justified, which is testing out life support and how to wiggle around in space.  The ISS is stuck within the magnetosphere; cislunar craft would at least be beyond that layer of protection and farther from supplies.  If LEO is getting-feet-wet and Mars is up-to-your-neck, then Lunar space would amount to calf-deep-wading.  Going out to an actual asteroid with astronauts about waist-deep, but the ARRM concept seems set on putting things in lunar orbit for now.

When it comes to reaching Mars the whole idea is on the weak side, but then again NASA claims to be set on taking things methodically.

#2 Re: Unmanned probes » Europa Orbiter - Possible In What Form? » 2012-04-17 21:19:23

Read the past articles, but I am wondering if there are ways to slim down and focus the mission into a more manageable spacecraft.  Outside of the Prometheus mega-nuke-ship concept it has been a reiteration of the same needs, designs, and loads.

Is it possible, for instance, to enter orbit around a planet more gradually instead of with a jerky and sudden insersion maneuver?  If the Jupiter Orbiter Insersion cut be cut out the probe's weight would drop almost in half and to a size range akin to standard satellites and inner solar system probes.

#3 Unmanned probes » Europa Orbiter - Possible In What Form? » 2012-04-17 15:30:11

RedStreak
Replies: 15

There have been so many attempts at just designing the Europa Orbiter - 3 that I can identify offhand:
2000 - Europa Orbiter - Part of the "Fire And Ice" missions the included visiting the Sun, Europa, and Pluto.
2004 - Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter - Flagship Nuclear Reactor Orbiter that would have visited each of the outermost 3 of the Galilean Satellites.
2009 - Europa Jupiter System Mission - Joint orbiters to Europa and Ganymede by a joint NASA/ESA effort but sadly NASA canceled and doubtful ESA will pull this off solo.

It seems there have been some studies to split the Europa Orbiter into 2 halves: one focusing on close-in mapping with cameras, altimeters, and magnetometers, and the other doing Galileo-style fly-bys doing chemistry with spectrometers and sporadic ice-penetrating-radar.  The second seems quite feasible but is little more than a revamped Galileo, and if anything the lack of Plutonium for power is the limiting factor.

There are 2 Achilles Heels in creating a decent Europa Orbiter: radiation and mass.  Europa and Io rest in the deadly heart of Jupiter's radiation belts, apparently strong enough to overwhelm Juno-style electronics and solar arrarys - a month or 2 seems to be the average guess at the lifespan of a hypothetical orbiter.  Mass is ramped up by propellant loads - not just one but two orbit insersion maneuvers even with gravity assists from the other moons, and this seems to force the orbiter to sizes as large or larger than Cassini.


Could it be possible to bypass these issues?  Juno and a proposed Io Observer seem to adopt polar orbits around Jupiter, going through the 'eye' Jupiter forms in the radiation storm about itself.  One would think a similar approach could allow safer Europa fly-bys (whereas Galileo took an equitorial approach that plowed through it).  As for reducing mass, asteroid-explorer Dawn used solar-electric to gently encircle Vesta - considering a solar powered Jupiter-craft will surely have massive arrays with ample electricity, at least within Jupiter orbit, could electric propulsion ease an orbiter around Jupiter?  On top of that, could rendevousing with the Jovian LaGrange points be of use too with or without electric propulsion?  If those problems could be addressed, it should be possible to scale a Europa Orbiter down to something akin to Mars Reconissance Orbiter.

Anyone capable of guestimating a few things for Europa Orbiter's challenges?

#5 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2008-05-27 14:30:35

PHX on its parachute floating high above Heimdall crater - imaged by MRO/HiRISE 25 May 2008

PHX landed about 20kms west from this crater, which is about 10kms across.

HOLY CRAP!  :shock: Did Phoenix actually fly over Heimdall?!  Man I never thought the engineers would allow it to get even that close to a hole in a ground like THAT.  yikes

#6 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2008-05-27 11:20:37

i imagine that someone has seen this picture. but just what is this in the background ? im kind of a newbie at pictures, so be patient.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were the heatshield or the aeroshell. If anything upcoming orbital imagery from MRO will confirm all the local rocks and terrain.

#7 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2008-05-26 01:04:22

230118main_false_color_postcard.jpg

First false color image of Mars.  Almost exactly as predicted: flat plains exceeding few rocks and signs of those polygon stripes in ground.

#8 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2008-05-25 10:20:44

Here's info from Space.com's site: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/08 … eview.html

NASA will broadcast Phoenix's approach and landing attempt live on NASA TV from the JPL control room here,  with commentary set to begin at 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT).

#9 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2008-05-23 14:44:44

Man I hope the probe has better systems then their microphones did!  :?

#10 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia+Europe sign deal to build six seater Lunar Craft! :D » 2008-05-23 00:37:02

As for Russia & ESA's possible partnership...well between the both of them I would hope they'd have enough know-how to create at the least a second-generation Soyuz akin to Orion.

Klipper looked like it had potential; the only real doubt is Russia's budget or ESA's dedication.

#11 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia+Europe sign deal to build six seater Lunar Craft! :D » 2008-05-23 00:28:53

Why put crew in HEO? Crew would be outside the protection of the radiation belts. These orbits are designed for comm sats.

Better view at the least for Earth Observation but if we take the Hubble analogy we could be taking more subtantial and long-lived platforms in the highly valulable geostationaly orbit.  Less time in Earth's shadow too which has its boon for solar power.

LEO is handy for spy satellites and polar-orbiting mapping satellites ala Landsat, but I think it has become overrated and overused for manned missions.  The loss of Columbia has proved that, at the least, if we use men and women we should use them in something substantial, and within the Earth-Moon systems geostationary orbit is first high-ranking orbit before the Lagrange points and the Moon itself.

#12 Re: Unmanned probes » Mars Sample Return (MSR) » 2008-05-09 23:27:51

People are beginning to think more sensibly about the MSR:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/08 … eturn.html

Pricey and risky

There is no question that a Mars sample return mission will be a pricey and risky initiative and opinions at the meeting varied widely when it came time to discuss the best way to get the greatest scientific returns for the least money.

"We don't want to engineer the [heck] out of this and make it a $10 billion return mission. We'll never get samples back. Let's be realistic," said Clive Neal, a professor of civil engineering and geological sciences at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

"A Mars sample return will be much more costly than other Mars missions. That's not actually a thesis ... I think that's a given," said David Mittlefehldt of the Astromaterials Research Office. "Orbital study is getting increasingly sophisticated. Nevertheless, it doesn't reliably provide an accurate description of the geology of the surface. And that's really what you need in order to plan a Mars sample return mission," he said. "Therefore, I think we should go some place where wheels-on-the-ground provide that geologic context."

#13 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares I (CLV) - status » 2008-05-09 13:00:33

Although not as spectacular as the J-2 testing, another element to the Ares-I systems made some news:

NASA Awards Contract For Ares I Mobile Launcher

NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program. Ares I is the rocket that will transport the Orion crew exploration vehicle, its crew and cargo to low Earth orbit. The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher.

#14 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares I (CLV) - status » 2008-05-09 12:57:04

Splendid to hear about the testing.  8)   I'm seeing posts about it all the place online.

#15 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares V (CaLV) - status » 2008-05-08 14:14:26

Personally the missions that should get automatic Ares V approval would be the Neptune Orbiter and the single-mirror optical telescope (there seem to be many variations of same thing  tongue  ), a visual counterpart to the infrared Webb.

#16 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares V (CaLV) - status » 2008-05-08 12:03:41

More talk on Ares V as a booster: NASA’s Big Booster: Boon or Bust for Space Science?

At this point, the report explains, NASA doesn’t have reliable price tag info on the Ares V.

But given its development, the report spotlights a number of vision missions that might benefit from the opportunities enabled by the Constellation system, and are therefore deserving of future study, such as the Modern Universe Space Telescope, a Stellar Imager, an Interstellar Probe mission, Solar Polar Imager, Neptune Orbiter with Probes, and a Titan Explorer.

The committee believes that Ares V offers the greatest potential for an impact on science. The big launcher would be capable of hurling large-diameter, large-volume, heavy spacecraft into orbit, seemingly removing the physical — although not the financial — constraints on missions that would benefit from being able to fly large, heavy payloads to their destinations.

But the report stresses that using the Ares V could have a potentially dramatic effect on the price tags of these missions. That is, incorporating the use of an expensive launch vehicle could increase costs. But it could also possibly balance increased costs by simplifying mission design - for instance, by cutting out the requirement for on-orbit assembly or eliminating complicated deployment mechanisms.

The committee found that the greatly increased payload lift capacity promised by Ares V could lead to more costly science payloads.

Also, it was determined that the Ares 1 capabilities are not sufficiently distinct from those of Atlas V and Delta IV to enable different types or a higher quality of space science missions.

So the Ares V has great potential whereas the Ares I is limited, barring it turning out to be cheaper than Altas or Delta.

#17 Re: Human missions » Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status » 2008-05-07 22:39:16

The Outpost will hold four crew plus equipment, it doesn't need to be huge. Mobile habs seem to have a lot of advantages, but they need extra structure.

Correct but if you plan on establishing more than the 6-month excursions a bigger structure pays off, and a larger lander allows more cargo capacity.

#18 Re: Human missions » Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status » 2008-05-07 15:29:30

It sounds like bigger may be better (or at least structurally & mass-wise efficent):

...the results from this study show that structural efficiency
varies substantially across the different Habitats studied for each. Hybrid concepts proved to be
the most structurally efficient on a mass-per-unit-volume basis, with the best hardshell concepts
at least 33 percent heavier. For hardshell concepts, efficiency is improved by having larger
(longer and larger diameter) Habitats, although efficiency was shown to be degraded by choosing
inefficient shapes. The process reported here allowed insight into why the smaller Habitats
(option 2 Mini-Habs) were least efficient. The two major reasons are that common structure
(domes and frames for example) as well as structure based on the Habitat gross mass are both
more dominant in the smaller Habitats. In terms of floor area, the results show that multi-story
Habitats (Monolithics A and B) have much higher mass efficiency than the single floor options,
no matter what the size of the Habitat. For single story/floor concepts, the hybrid is most
efficient.

If they want a useful compromise, I'd suggest landing a few mobile habs and using them as rovers.  An expedition or two could roam the site for a good location, and after that the monolithic stuff lands with the older, smaller habs linking up to start a modest but strong base with perhaps a few rover-habs sent out for expeditions now and again.  Achillies heel I'd admit would be designing multiple habs...but then again a descent stage built to handle a monolithic could land two mobile habs.  As with the 5-seg SRBs on Ares that could offer compatibility for Altair landers.

#19 Re: Human missions » STS-124 Discovery » 2008-05-07 14:10:25

That money would be far better spent accelerating Ares/Orion and if there's a some left over starting more COTS projects.

A 50 MT Shuttle C is too small and too expensive for Lunar or Mars cargo missions, and a human rated version will be too risky and wasteful. Changing the main engine to a RS-68 makes it closer to Ares V, so why not just build Ares V and get all the advantages of synergy with Ares I and the enormous extra capability?

I have to agree there.

Shuttle C was a good idea...about 15 years ago.  It was ok when we were considering making better use of the system but alone it can barely manage doing a lunar mission.

Ares is the better route, otherwise shuttle C is a bittersweet compromise at best.  We may as well maximize what we got if we're going to abandon the orbiter element.

#20 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Transportation in a Solar Society » 2008-05-03 14:57:43

Antimatter I think might have a slight edge over fusion and given the higher energy more worth the effort.

#21 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares V (CaLV) - status » 2008-04-30 22:55:15

Yeah...definetely impressive payload.  I got this from JPL's Cassini Spacecraft Introduction page so we have some numbers to crunch for payloads to consider for Ares V:

At a Glance 


Dimensions: 6.7 meters (22 feet) high; 4 meters (13.1 feet) wide
Weight: 5,712 kilograms (12,593 pounds) with fuel, Huygens probe, adapter, etc; 2,125
kilograms (4,685 pounds) unfueled orbiter alone
Orbiter science instruments: composite infrared spectrometer, imaging system, ultraviolet imaging spectrograph, visual and infrared mapping spectrometer, imaging radar, radio science, plasma spectrometer, cosmic dust analyzer, ion and neutral mass spectrometer, magnetometer, magnetospheric imaging instrument, radio and plasma wave science
Power: 885 watts (633 watts at end of mission) from radioisotope thermoelectric generators

Cassini's ~12,600 pounds translates to 6.3 tons with a full fuel load included.  And what was that lovely number your stated for TLI mass cyclops?  65 tons?  So at the least something like Cassini could have been sent to Saturn with a couple extra 'toys' with ease by Ares V right?  8)

#22 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares V (CaLV) - status » 2008-04-30 22:43:42

Lunar and Mars missions want as much payload as possible.

Sounds right, so whether or not there's a third or fourth stage involved depends on the distance to fly and the mass of the spacecraft.  I imagine the only things that might need up to a fourth stage would be a Neptune/Uranus orbiter, a TAU-Heliopause mission, a Jovian/Saturnian sample return, or a Jovian/Saturnian Prometheus-style mission.

I imagine using the EDS that'll already be part of the Ares V system pretty impressive payloads could be sent to Venus, Mars, the asteroid belt, and Jupiter for certain.  smile

#23 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares V (CaLV) - status » 2008-04-30 14:08:59

I imagine that'd depend on the needed mass.  The Ares V will already be pushing mass limits from NASA equiptment in existance.  I imagine the 'nominal' configurations would be the the Ares V Core/EDS or Core/Centaur combinations.  A small solid third stage probably wouldn't cause too much of a rukus but a Centaur atop the EDS atop the Core would be too tall for the VAB as well as too massive for the transporter to support...unless someone has numbers to crunch that show otherwise.

#24 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status » 2008-04-30 12:08:46

Hopefully Andrews is up to the task, but considering they have a few years to work the problem it's a bit premature to be critical of anything.

#25 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares V (CaLV) - status » 2008-04-30 12:06:58

From the jist of the paper about the only things this rocket couldn't launch would be like a Triton or Pluto orbiter, but considering it could likely launch the equivellant of Cassini to Neptune I think that'd certainly be more than sufficent there.  tongue

This would certainly be an ideal rocket for sample returns or planetary networks, obviously Mars but they implied the same could be done to either Jupiter or Saturn.

MAN now I have a reason to definetely return to college so when the 2010s come I can possibly be part of it, getting right degrees of course beforehand!  big_smile

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB