You are not logged in.
Come on, the guy is already 78. How much worse off can he be?
I'll never understand the hatred for Vice President Cheney.
Come on everyone.
It was clearly an accident. Accidents happen. Not necessarily anyones fault.
And it isn't like the guy was hurt very bad.
I don't know. I"m against long downtimes to develop infrastructure and technology.
In the case of the space program, I'm afraid that it would be another "shuttle" situation where the "first step" to a larger program becomes and end in and of itself.
One thing Dr. Zubrin had exactly right, you've GOT TO have the destination in mind in order to develop the technology.
Saying, "we'll develop the technology that will enable us to do this is" is the completely wrong approach.
What should be said is "we want to go to Mars (or somewhere else). What technology do we need to do it?"
I'm appalled at the lack of interest or even conversation ANYWHERE that I can find about possible manned missions to the gas giants.
Aside from the HOPE site, there appears to be not even talk about such missions.
Incidentally, I don't want to start yet another thread on the general subject but has any mission architecture work been done on a human mission to Saturn (Titan landing I presume)?
Note, try as I might, I can't find anything beyond the HOPE site about manned outer planets missions
Note, when I say "Grand Tour" in the context of manned missions, I'm NOT referring to Voyager type flybys or to actual planetary alignments.
I'm referring basically to using a single manned spacecraft to visit multiple planets in a single extended mission.
Agreed. GCN.
It would be quite a concept. A fleet of five Outer Planets Mission ships, Jupiter (Callisto), Saturn (Titan), Uranus (Miranda) Neptune (Triton), and Pluto all assembled in Earth orbit at roughly the same time using common components and basically the same types of propulsion systems.
I don't have a clue as to costs though. But who can say what the U.S. and other contributing nations might be capable of in 30 to 40 years or so.
Incidentally, I don't want to start yet another thread on the general subject but has any mission architecture work been done on a human mission to Saturn (Titan landing I presume)?
I finallly got to see the video version of this today. It differs in that the mission returns to Earth from Saturn instead of pressing on to Pluto.
Even then, it is an impressive, realistic looking program.
While I'm all for Mars Semi-Direct to Mars and HOPE (Human Outer Planets Exploration) to get to Jupiter................I'm wondering if this kind of "Human Grand Tour" project (perhaps two separate missions) might be the way to go to get to Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
Got to admit the scientific return woujld be staggering.
What is the estimated surface gravity of Titania and Oberon?
For that matter, what is the estimated gravity on Titan and Triton?
I know form the HOPE website that the gravity on Callisto is about 1/8th G.
I've always accepted as a given that Callisto would be the best place for a manned mission to Jupiter to set up shop (not Europa as is often referred to, Callisto is the only large Jovian moon outside the primary radiation belts.
Likewise, Titan is often seen as the best moon for a mission to Saturn and Triton for Neptune.
But what would be the best moon around Uranus for a manned mission to land on and why?
Sorry for mispelling "expedition".
My computer screen is acting up and making out the words is difficult.
I thought this had been a given for a couple of years now?
Another reason for the lack of vision and "thinking big" might be the nature of wealth in America these days.
Americans are wealthy and have been for two decades by and large.
But in some ways, it is a precarious wealth. Our economy is good and unemployment is low...............yet some 20 million Americans chang or lose their jobs in a given year. Almost all of them quickly get new ones. Even better paying ones. But the uncertaintynatural to even a brief change in jobs unsettles most people.
Their prosperity seems to rest on an unstable foundation. So in life, they are reluctant to embrace anything that seems disruptive of the status quo.
No big things since 1970? The internet. Computers. The defeat of the worlds 4th most powerful army with only 148 American dead. The human Genome Project. Nuclear Energy...
The internet and computers weren't a big plan, or big project, no national committment or national effort required. They were evolutionary.
The 1991 Gulf War was one of my "we fired shots, declared victory and went home" things that I originally alluded to that we're paying the price for 14 years later.
Most all the nuclear reactors currently in operation in the United States were in the planning stage well back in the 1970s.
I'm not familiar enough with the Human Genome project to comment on it.
So you're saying RIGHT NOW we could build an unmanned probe that could get to the 1000 AU mark in only TEN YEARS with no real advances in technology?
I'll assume you're correct.
My next question is................why isn't NASA seriously proposing this?
It doesn't sound like a budget buster to me.
And why spend money on space telescopes like the Terrestial Planet Finder or Inferometer or whatever its called when a probe that could take advantage of gravitational lenses would be much more effective?
I'm now officially off the bounty idea.
I've read that an unmanned probe sent out to between 1000 AUs and 2200 AUs would be able to use the suns gravity as a lense to get detailed images from other solar systems.
Theoretically, such images would be so detailed that they could actually show builidings (if any) and similiar sized surface details on planets in other solar systems.
Does anyone have any idea how long it would take to get a probe like that to the desired distance? Assuming advanced nuclear engines of some kind at least?
I love the USA. Two hundred and fifty years my family has been here. I would never want to live anywhere else in the world.
But there is one thing that I've come to loathe about this great country.
We no longer think "big" anymore.
By and large, few in America these days seem to support or favor big plans, projects, dreams, goals. Even in fighting our wars our goal seems to be fire off a few spectacular shots for a few days, declare peace and go home.
And of course you can see how this ties in with the space program.
We nudge things around the edges. Cheaper, faster, better. for example. But we avoid large scale long term commitments.
I blame the 1970s. Just after the bicentennial in particular.
In the 1960s, the nation was full of big goals.
Man on the moon.
War on poverty.
Civil Rights.
Preventing the spread of communism.
All four of these big plans, projects, dreams petered out in the 1970s.
The space program was gutted even as men on the moon became a reality.
The war on poverty and the war in Vietnam were about equally unsuccessfull.
And Civil Rights became mired in problems of urban unrest. school desegregation and the breakdown of minority families.
So Americans recoiled at dreaming big and almost since them have adopted a "muddle through" attitude.
Not to say that is always a bad thing. But I think a nation that thinks of itself as great has got to dream and plan big from time to time.
End of rant.
What do you think?
Yeah but its not just going to scatter evenly around the universe. Its going to go were whatever forces send it. Enless that means directly into the atmosphere, that means its going to float around somewhere in abnormally high concentrations.
In any event, heres Nasa's Human Outer Planet Exploration (HOPE) Mission plan to Callisto info someone mentioned: PDF (3.1MB)
Thanks. While I differ with some of the mission ideas (too short a stay time on Callisto, too small a crew) I am glad that someone is giving such missions serious thought.
You're probably right.
I wonder if there is broad agreement that for a mission to Jupiter that the manned landing should be on Callisto for reasons of minimizing exposure to the radiation fields near Jupiter.
And I was wondering, how often the launch windows open to and from Jupiter? Wonder if there is some kind of website where you can figure future launch windows to various targets?
I'm a big fan of nuclear power myself though my current science certification is only to teach at the 8th grade level (I plan to complete my full certification for teaching Earth & Physical science throughout high schoo. Teaching and coaching is a truly rewarding occupation to me).
Wasn't there an early 1970s era mission plan that called for a gas core fission engine rocket that would send a manned mission to Mars? One of the older Opposition class plans that was fashionable back then? I seem to remember seeing it in one of the space books of that era.
It had a rocket shaped central core with what looked like an early space shuttle on the nose end. The central core housed the engine. Tanks of hydrogen were then clustered around the core in two groups os six each. the external hydrogen tanks were jettisoned enroute as used.
Thanks GCN.
By the way is there ar reason that "Gas Core Nuclear Rocket" is part of your name?
I would swear you sound like Stanely Borowksi (hope I got that name right) the noted nuclear rocket scientist.
Just mentioned it because I've followed some of the mans work and have been interested in it.
Oh don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the approaches outlines by Robert Zubrin.
Direct launch, no orbital assembly, in situ resource utilization.
But I do like to keep an eye out for the high technology "big plan" approaches from time to time
And the idea of a "manned grand tour" of the solar system has certain appeal. Especially when in the back of your mind you worrythat every manned spaceflight might be the last.
^I agree with virtually everything you posted there except for having two or three independent ships for a rescue capability.
I don't think you can have a serious inspace rescue capability (aside from the Apollo 13 type) without the infrastructure in place for easy access to the area where a disaster might occur.
We don't have a real rescue capabilty right now for earth orbit operations.
We won't have one for the first Mars missions.
So why make it a requirement on a mission to Jupiter?
The vessel detailed in the broadcast and book does indeed use a fusion engine and prepositioned fuel stocks around the solar system.
IIRC, the Venus manned lander is built alot like a deep sea submarine while the lone astronaut to venture out wears a spacasuit similiar to a deep sea divers suit to withstand the heat and pressure.
Also, the Io lander does have superconducting magnets to help shield the astronauts from the intense radiation.
One must consider that the mission outlined had to be made so it would look good on television. Perhaps that is the reason for the short stay times on each world and the relatively small crew.
A vessel as large and sophisticated as the Pegasus shown in "Voyage To The Planets" could probably support a crew of at least a dozen and stay times of months rather than days at each target planet.l
I've wondered if maybe we're thinking about manned space exploration to the planets the wrong way. Instead of constantly trying to reduce mass, cut costs everwhere possible, perhaps a large "Battlestar:Galactica" approach might be better.