NASA has just announced the shuttles successor and the possibility of manned deep space missions

The shuttle was designed in the 60's, it's had more upgrades than Windows
Von Braun lost interest, because he knew they had something much faster than rockets.
Rockets are SO pase', SO '90's

reply to post by Frira


There you have it, then;
Except for the Apollo missions to the Moon, NASA's manned spaceflight missions have taken place within the cocoon of the Earth's magnetosphere. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, one of the largest solar proton events ever recorded occurred, and it produced radiation levels of sufficient energy for the astronauts outside of the Earth's magnetosphere to absorb lethal doses within 10 hours after the start of the event. It is indeed fortunate that the timing of this event did not coincide with one of the Apollo missions. As NASA ponders the feasibility of sending manned spaceflight missions back to the Moon or to other planets, radiation protection for crew members remains one of the key technological issues which must be resolved.
Not so safe, after all
From the Newscientist;
...would depend on the destination, which is not yet clear, although President Obama has called on NASA to send astronauts to visit an asteroid by 2025.
Don't worry, by that time a few asteroids will have visited US.....'

What is it with this manned space flight obession BS? It's so stupid.

The problem I have with all of it is that they want to go to an asteroid then move on to Mars in the 2030's. I just don't see the purpose behind sending humans to mars or an asteroid. Let a private company try it, if it's so profitable!!! I think we should still be focusing on low earth orbit and deep space telescopes and possibly a small colony on the moon. But I really REALLY think all of this should be COMMERCIALLY backed. NO MORE PR STUNTS (like the moon landings were). We DO NOT need more of that. This is really the reason why we need the private companies involved. We need them to create ideas so that we can commercialize space. This will create the necessary conditions for a thriving space industry. Right now what we have is a complete joke.

We should not be depending on NASA so much. It's just pathetic!

I'm thinking:
1) Low earth orbit factories for manufacturing things in zero-g
2) Deep space telescopes for imaging our universe - exoplanets, gases, evolution of universe, etc
3) Mining helium-3 on the moon for fusion reactors
4) Mining asteroids when it becomes economic to do so
4) Etc

My hope is we will find more zero-g benefits in the area of manufacturing. We need real economic benefits that're felt deep below the fanciful whims of sci-fi buffs. A normal everyday american needs to be able to see the benefit of the space program. This will happen when industry starts to exploit space travel for various reasons - mining, zero-g benefits, etc.

The fact that private companies aren't willing to build a deep-space rocket is because IT'S NOT ECONOMIC YET. They do not have economic ideas yet. That's why NASA is trying. We all need to realize that this is a WASTE OF MONEY. We would be far better off funding a program to commercialize space. It would be a kind of think tank that brainstorms marketable ideas.

Why not try to work with russia to improve their rocket? Why not try to create an international space program? Oh ya, I forgot. We're still warring with each other. We need leverage for war.

Having said that, putting telescopes in deep space or on the moon is not a bad idea.

But I guess it don't matter. Lets go and throw our money in a black hole. It's american.

And remember people...

Once we build it we're stuck with it.

reply to post by nixie_nox

I think you're closer to the truth than most.

The constellation and this just have politics written all over them.

When will we learn? We like to dumbly throw money at things that tickle our fancy.

NASA has just announced the shuttles successor and the possibility of manned deep space missions

You know, I really hate the cynic that I am sometimes but, in this case? Don't hold your breath waiting for the next US manned space mission... to anywhere.

NASA began seriously talking permanent moon bases and Mars missions early on into 1970... just a few months after the first Apollo mission to the lunar surface. It garnered a lot of excitement and we all waited for the flag to find its way to the fourth rock from the sun.

But then, a funny thing happened. Nothing.

Each and every time NASA talked about such missions, it was always just over the horizon of sight. You know, 5 or 10 or 15 years around the bend. And now here we are in 2011 and they're still doing it. The first manned launch in the new Orion-class capsule is scheduled for, what? 2018?

For those of us who were alive to see man land on the moon in 1969, there is now what amounts to ZERO chance we will live to see a human being ever go any further than low Earth orbit. What's worse is that my kids don't stand much better chances.

People often rail against the space program because they see it as just one big money pit sucking tax dollars like a black hole eating stars. And the problem in arguing against this perception is that so much of what they say is true. Billions and billions of dollars into NASA over decades and we still have never sent a human being further than roughly 250,000 miles, one way.

Pretty sad... and why the cynic in me is just rolling all over and laughing his fat behind off at even approaching this subject.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Frira

 

There you have it, then;
Except for the Apollo missions to the Moon, NASA's manned spaceflight missions have taken place within the cocoon of the Earth's magnetosphere. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, one of the largest solar proton events ever recorded occurred, and it produced radiation levels of sufficient energy for the astronauts outside of the Earth's magnetosphere to absorb lethal doses within 10 hours after the start of the event. It is indeed fortunate that the timing of this event did not coincide with one of the Apollo missions. As NASA ponders the feasibility of sending manned spaceflight missions back to the Moon or to other planets, radiation protection for crew members remains one of the key technological issues which must be resolved.
Not so safe, after all

From the Newscientist;
...would depend on the destination, which is not yet clear, although President Obama has called on NASA to send astronauts to visit an asteroid by 2025.
Don't worry, by that time a few asteroids will have visited US.....'

edit on 18-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: Add info

It is not safe. Apollo was, and Orion will be, safe enough to allow mission within certain parameters using forecasts of solar events. It was not just "fortune" as they were forecasting solar activity in 1969. That does not eliminate risk but it does lessen it.

Keep in mind, solar events are directional, so that if one occurs while astronauts are outside of the magnetosphere, the probability of receiving a fatal dose remains low. In terms of lunar missions of relatively short duration, solar event forecasting is probably sufficient; but extended stays and missions to Mars or an asteroid may include a shelter with which the vehicle will be docked.

As I understand it, water and plastic (not lead) would likely make up the radiation protection of such a shelter.

I gather that many who consider the radiation in and beyond the Van Allen Belt misunderstand the type of radiation-- confusing it with the sort of radiation produced by isotopes (like Uranium and Plutonium). The radiation danger within the Van Allen Belt and from a solar event beyond it is not that kind of threat.

The difference has much to do with what material is used for shielding. Metal, including lead, is a bad choice by itself-- not because of the the weight, but because of the type of radiation-- metal makes the threat worse. Even air is better than aluminum. Astronauts on the same mission would receive different doses based upon where in the Apollo capsule they were. Next to the wall not only had less volume of air to shield them, but being closer to the aluminum skin was undesirable because it increased the risk.

I have not seen anything new about potential moon long-term shelter designs in years, but have the impression that a major solar event would require evacuation and a quick return to earth of the earliest missions until a sufficient shelter could be built, in sections-- much like the ISS was assembled from successive component launches.

For Mars and asteroid missions, it seems a small shelter will have to be launched separately in one or more units which which the Orion vehicle will dock. I could be wrong, but I believe a Mars voyage is expected to include an assembly of units -- not just a capsule and lander-module like the Apollo lunar missions. Besides a shelter from any solar events in the long voyage, perhaps a rotating module to provide some artificial gravity will also be necessary.

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by Frira

 

So would that mean that the estimated exposure to radiation through the VAB both ways would total approximately 3 ?

Oh. I didn't make that clear-- The numbers are for a complete mission-- cumulative of there and back.

Now, don't take me wrong here, this is obviously passing through the safest or in other words the thinnest point of the VAB ? Now, most Diagrams of the VAB show that it's Earth's Magnetosphere that has " Trapped " Gamma, solar, and other galactic radiation correct ? Not the entire magnetosphere but it seems to play a very significant role in it's mean. Okay, so here's my question, wouldn't this put the safest trajectory either straight out Earth's magnetic poles, or very near to them ? Wouldn't this in fact be the least favourable path to the moon ? Again, I'm stating my question based on what I already know, as well with out looking up significant information in regards to shuttle launch positions, or the lunar position at the time of the launch as well as the calculated point of interception. Now I would imagine the ideal trajectory would be planned to minimize radiation exposure, limit the use of fuel to get to the moon, and match it's speed to then enter it's orbit. So the rest of the mission can be carried out.

Yes, it would be safest from the poles. I think the inclination used by Apollo 11 was something close to 30 degrees from the pole, for the reasons you explained. I think the inability to avoid the VAB entirely is a result of the thrust-to-mass of the S-IVB rocket. Perigee to Apogee has a hyperbolic curve shape restricted by the ability of the motor.

Basically, the closer to the equator, the more intense the radiation and the thicker the belts.

You have to go fast enough to get to a high enough orbit to get to the moon; and the limits of the thrust force the curve through the corner of the bad (but never worst) part of VAB. In short-- they made compromises. The shape of the VAB just does not cooperate with orbital dynamics very nicely. So, even if starting from a polar orbit, entirely avoiding the belts wasn't going to happen. Fortunately, those rocket scientists deserve their reputation for being clever and minimized the exposure. The sun also behaved itself.

So if this is the case the moon would have to be in a position to provide sufficient time to navigate the VAB safely, then either slow down to match the lunar orbit, or accelerate to " Catch Up " to the moon as it makes it's pass.

...

You aim at where the moon will be, not where it is. In essence, you "lead" the moon. The vehicle remains in Earth orbit-- just with an Apogee high enough to include the moon within the orbit. The slowest point of the trip is where the Earth's Gravity and the Moon's gravity are in equilibrium-- then it falls toward the moon. A burn from the Command Service Module was used to direct the CM and LM to a circular Lunar Orbit.

Since it is in Earth orbit-- albeit an oblong one, not firing the motor to be inserted into Lunar Orbit can bring it back to earth-- by design. Called "Free return" the concept is, do nothing... and you come home.

Basically the Apollo Rockets were built in a way that each progressive step, or vehicle was disposable right ? Now as far as the orbiter goes, as well as the lander and return vehicles, based on the limitations of the time, weight was a very considerable obstacle. ...
...
They state they basically only had enough to go to the moon and return to a point the pod ( Return vehicle ? ) could re-enter Earth's Atmosphere. I don't want to look up details as this was meant to be quick but I'm getting way into this. If they got off course, wouldn't they have to take the quickest path home ? ...

Yes. You understand correctly. But the answer to your question is, No, not really. The quickest way home was to loop around the moon-- just as Apollo 13 did. The Command Service Module rocket motor had plenty of fuel and could perform mid-course corrections, place it in Lunar orbit, change that orbit as necessary, and then fire up to get back home-- with the tank about half full.

Out of space, see next...

Originally posted by butcherguy
But our (the U.S.) current 'manned' space program is the X-37 B. X usually stands for experimental. It is the Air Forces' toy though not a NASA project that will be dropping off suitcases at the ISS.

As said before, the X-37 is unmanned. It's basically a UAV for space. It's also incapable of docking at the ISS.

Originally posted by WorldObserver

... and be capable of launching humans beyond low Earth orbit

which proves that they have NEVER been beyond Low Earth Orbit! So, no moon landings finally admitted!

How does that statement prove they never went to the Moon? Some rockets are more capable than others. The Saturn V's were capable of taking humans BEO, the Shuttles were designed for LEO only. This new rocket will bring back the BEO capability. It's hardly an admission of "NEVER" being BEO.

Awesome, but announcing and doing are 2 different things. it may still never happen. sounds crappy but we may never get off this rock. i really hope this plan of thiers actually happens.

We need REAL reasons for manned spaceflight and deep space travel. That's at the heart of this matter. Just going out there because it's in our blood to explore IS NOT ENOUGH.

One of hte reasons Columbus sailed west was because they needed new land and new trading opportunities. They didn't do it just because they wanted to explore or just to appear strong to someone else. They were doing it for real world reasons that went far beyond ideals. That's where space travel needs to be and should go. Blind idealism needs to be tempered by reality.

If it's knowledge we want, we don't have to rely on manned spaceflight. Deep space probes can do plenty at a fraction of the cost! Manned spaceflight has some value. Having a space station in low earth orbit allows us to do zero-g experiments which has some value. It also allows us to test technologies that require a vacuum. There is some need for manned spaceflight, but I just don't see a economic reason to send people to the moon or the asteroids or mars, yet.

But I'm sure that a think tank can come up with some ideas.

It boggles my mind that we haven't confirmed life on mars. Levin, the designer of hte experiment on the Viking lander, feels to this day that they detected life, even though NASA remains skeptical. So here we're, over 30 years later, and we're still asking this question.

Have a look at this:
www.spacedaily.com ...

IMHO, it's one of the greatest invisible news stories ever.

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by Frira

 

Part II !

How could a Lunar return vehicle exit lunar orbit safely, at a point that would provide the best trajectory towards one of the poles ?

Good point and that never occurred to me.

All the data I have read on the transit on the VAB has been about the trip out-- not the trip back. Let me look to see what I can find...

Okay, I'm back, and the better for it, maybe even wiser.

First, a really neat site which can explain your earlier questions better than I: Bob Braeunig's Apollo Pages-- I think I found my reading for tonight.

As to this question, my favorite ATS-posting NASA guy (because I read his books), James Oberg: I found quoting Dr. Van Allen,

However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.

I could not find anything more specific, but doubt I would find much more authoritative. So, Yes, the return to earth also included an inclination to merely clip the corner.

...How much fuel could it really contain being it's the last step, in the progressive vehicle or rocket ? I don't expect you to know, but if you do can you help me out here ?

I did not know fuel consumption rates-- not the stuff I read; but remember reading that the Command Service Module Engine had a lot more ability than actually needed-- originally designed to be able to land and then lift ITSELF from the moon-- before they decided on the separate Lunar Module. That would be in addition to the other duties.

This is all an amazing feet of science, that obviously took countless hours of planning and many trials and failures to achieve. A lot of these areas confuse me, as well leave me reeling and open for plenty of dis-info to be implanted. I don't often get a chance to talk to people of a caliber suited for these questions. If I need to I will state the sources that lead to my quest

There are some smart and knowledgeable folks on this site-- so am wondering why you responded to me?

Triangle is the shape but we wont see it public for 10-20 years!