|
Keep debates civil. |
|
On January 24 2013 15:21 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 09:03 t3hwUn wrote: I'd rather see our tax dollars spent elsewhere. The Private sector takes care of things and is the most efficient model to do so. Unfortunately that's not the majority view or at least it isn't portrayed as such. This is wrong. A entity in the private sector has a profit motive in order to receive any sort of investment. This means that anything that is at all risky (like trying to go to mars or set up a moon colony) will not be done by the private sector as there are easier and better ways to make money. There is also no evidence that private sector performs more efficiently than the government.
I hear/see this argument a lot. I've come to the conclusion that if you believe this, there is no argument I could make to change your opinion. I will say, though, that having worked for NASA, for the government, and for private companies its quite clear that government is less efficient than private industries. Especially when it comes to exploration. Its not that people that work in government are bad people, they just make worse decisions because of politics.
|
On February 27 2013 12:44 deadjawa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 15:21 BlackPanther wrote:On January 01 2011 09:03 t3hwUn wrote: I'd rather see our tax dollars spent elsewhere. The Private sector takes care of things and is the most efficient model to do so. Unfortunately that's not the majority view or at least it isn't portrayed as such. This is wrong. A entity in the private sector has a profit motive in order to receive any sort of investment. This means that anything that is at all risky (like trying to go to mars or set up a moon colony) will not be done by the private sector as there are easier and better ways to make money. There is also no evidence that private sector performs more efficiently than the government. I hear/see this argument a lot. I've come to the conclusion that if you believe this, there is no argument I could make to change your opinion. I will say, though, that having worked for NASA, for the government, and for private companies its quite clear that government is less efficient than private industries. Especially when it comes to exploration. Its not that people that work in government are bad people, they just make worse decisions because of politics.
Public funding may be less efficient for a variety of reasons (and I would even say by definition it is less "efficient"), but that doesn't answer the argument that private funding would not touch the risks that public funding can go after. Would a private company really have funded a manned mission to the moon if NASA hadn't paved the way first? Do you think a private company would have developed a smallpox vaccine that eradicated the disease?
|
1019 Posts
On February 27 2013 12:44 deadjawa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 15:21 BlackPanther wrote:On January 01 2011 09:03 t3hwUn wrote: I'd rather see our tax dollars spent elsewhere. The Private sector takes care of things and is the most efficient model to do so. Unfortunately that's not the majority view or at least it isn't portrayed as such. This is wrong. A entity in the private sector has a profit motive in order to receive any sort of investment. This means that anything that is at all risky (like trying to go to mars or set up a moon colony) will not be done by the private sector as there are easier and better ways to make money. There is also no evidence that private sector performs more efficiently than the government. I hear/see this argument a lot. I've come to the conclusion that if you believe this, there is no argument I could make to change your opinion. I will say, though, that having worked for NASA, for the government, and for private companies its quite clear that government is less efficient than private industries. Especially when it comes to exploration. Its not that people that work in government are bad people, they just make worse decisions because of politics.
It is unfair to blame governments for inefficiency compared to the private sector. Private companies are efficient as they are because of the chase for higher profit/lower expenses, which governments are not necessarily interested in. Also, space exploration and advancing human space technology for the betterment of our country is something politicians from both sides of the spectrum agree on. Congress is horrible as it is, but to deny a bright spot in one of our government agencies such as this one is just an indication of a deep and unreasonable mistrust of the federal government. People shouldn't forget that NASA's budget is like 1.5% of the total federal budget.
Things like sending a manned mission to the moon or sending starships to mine asteroids for minerals is a project and investment on an unbelievably huge scale that most private companies have zero interest in because of the extreme high risk/high return and the near uncertainty of such projects. If a private company has interest in it, that's great but I don't understand why the federal government with its deep experience of space missions and the funding power necessary for projects like this shouldn't be more involved in it.
|
SpaceX launch to ISS scheduled for Friday (March 1) at 10:10 a.m. EST
![[image loading]](http://images.spaceref.com/news/2013/Mars-Capsule_220213.m.jpg)
If Dennis Tito has his way, two people will leave our planet in January 2018 and make a trip to Mars and back. Tito will be footing much of the bill himself. This mission won't stop at Mars, but rather, will do a quick flyby.
Unlike the spate of space commerce companies that have flashed on and off the news in recent months, this effort has substantial cash behind it - at the onset. Also, unlike these previously announced efforts, this is not being done by a company that needs to eventually return a profit to its investors. Instead, it is being spearheaded by a non-profit organization, the Inspiration Mars Foundation.
Tito's mission will be facilitated by donors - not investors. And no, he will not be part of the crew.
Indeed, the intent of this mission, as contained in a media advisory is as follows: "This "Mission for America" will generate new knowledge, experience and momentum for the next great era of space exploration. It is intended to encourage all Americans to believe again, in doing the hard things that make our nation great, while inspiring youth through Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and motivation."
Intents and funding aside, this is a space mission first and foremost. And space missions are still somewhat complicated (e.g. expensive) to do - especially ones that involve humans.
![[image loading]](http://images.spaceref.com/news/2013/tito.figure.jpg)
The closest that the spacecraft would get to Mars would be ~100 km - and the crew would only spend 10 hours within that distance of the planet - with closest approach on the night side. Not too different than the first human mission to the Moon when all things are taken into account
Upon return, the Dragon capsule would use Earth's atmosphere to slow down via aerobraking. This has never been done with a human mission before. Ten days after aerobraking the Dragon capsule would return again to Earth and reenter at 14.2 km/sec. This would be the fastest reentry by any crewed spacecraft - ever. As such, this mission will require some advanced Thermal Protection System research. To that end Paragon/Inspiration Mars have already signed a reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA Ames Research Center. A check for $100,000 has already been presented to NASA to begin this work.
Since this IEE paper began to circulated, the Inspiration Mars Foundation has started to look at other mission concepts using different spacecraft and launch vehicles. As with the IEEE paper, the focus has been to use things that either exist or are expected to become available in the next several years.
The Dragon-based mission concept would require rather cramped quarters. Indeed the paper says: "The ECLSS was assumed to meet only basic human needs to support metabolic requirements of two 70 kg men, with a nominal metabolic rate of 11.82 MJ/d. Crew comfort is limited to survival needs only. For example, sponge baths are acceptable, with no need for showers ... Personal provisions are limited to items such as clothing and hygiene products."
In the weeks after this paper was submitted, Inspiration Mars has been looking at other concepts including an inflatable module placed at the nose of the crew capsule - something similar to what Bigelow Aerospace will be putting on the International Space Station (ISS). In order to limit use of internal volume, the mission concept also does away with all EVA provisions (spacesuits etc). This means that there is no way to fix things - or install things outside of the spacecraft - thus requiring all systems to be serviceable from inside the spacecraft. If this no-EVA approach is taken, then adding inflatable modules to the front of the crew capsule becomes problematic. Regardless of the final design they adopt, mass limitations are likely to force that final design to be rather cramped.
The initial SpaceX hardware concept uses only one launch. Adopting a mission that uses more than one launch increases cost and complexity. But that's nothing new. How much will it cost? Who knows. They have not settled on a mission architecture yet - but this will probably be in the hundreds of millions/half billion dollar range by the time it is all figured out. Again, unlike all the other space projects that have sprouted of late, Tito is a very wealthy man and is prepared to write some rather large checks. That fact alone moves this idea from giggle factor to the verge of credibility. Tito can afford to spend significant sums to figure this out. But, given the calendar aspects of his mission, he does not have time on his side.
Given the compressed schedule, assuming a launch in January 2018, one would assume that the mission design would need to be done very quickly and completed certainly no later than a year from now. Launch vehicle selection would likely need to be done in a similarly prompt time frame. Whatever rocket(s) are chosen, they need to be ordered and built. Unlike many missions, these trajectories have constrained launch windows that don't lend themselves to delays. As such development time will be highly compressed.
Source
|
That reentry sounds like a nightmare of a problem to solve. Such a narrow margin of error to get it right...
|
Anyone hear about this new comet (C/2013 A1) that could potentially hit Mars in October 2014?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/28/mars_impact_the_red_planet_may_get_hit_by_a_comet_in_october_2014.html
I'm a little worried about Curiosity, because while it seems the comet will most likely not impact Mars, it is almost certain that the comet's coma will envelop the planet and shotgun it with micro-asteroids.
If it did smash into Mars, the entire planet's atmosphere would be transformed. I've read articles about terraforming the planet using ammonium rich asteroids, I wonder if this impact could still potentially increase the greenhouse effect. I guess there is also the potential adverse effect of a decrease in surface temperatures if too much dust is thrown up and blocks the sun, and imagine how hard it will be to land on Mars after impact due to the ejecta.
|
|
|
|
|
Passive abort, seems like the solar panels did not deploy.
EDIT : Actually seems like a comms problem nvm.
|
@elonmusk
Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override.
|
@elonmusk Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active
@elonmusk About to pass over Australia ground station and command inhibit override
@elonmusk Thruster pod 3 tank pressure trending positive. Preparing to deploy solar arrays.
@elonmusk Solar array deployment successful
|
Asked about a timeline for docking at the station, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said, “We’re definitely not going to rush it.”
Musk said the SpaceX team thinks they have fixed the problem. “If that’s the case, it’s certainly going to be a huge relief,” he said.
“It was a little frightening there,” Musk admitted.
ISS chief Mike Suffredini said not to rule out a berthing opportunity at the International Space Station on Sunday if all looks good.
|
@elonmusk Attempting bring up of thruster pods 2 and 4
@elonmusk Pods 1 and 4 now online and thrusters engaged. Dragon transitioned from free drift to active control. Yes!!
@elonmusk Thruster pods one through four are now operating nominally. Preparing to raise orbit. All systems green.
@elonmusk Orbit raising burn successful. Dragon back on track.
everytime that falcon rocket starts to move i shit my pants, just waiting for it blow up. 3 launches is a pretty good start. and especially the recovery from this fault.
|
|
Shortly after the briefing concluded, engineers reported all four sets of thrusters were back on line and that testing was underway to verify the health of the system. But it appeared unlikely the Dragon could reach the outpost before Sunday at the earliest.
Space station Commander Kevin Ford took the delay in stride, telling a NASA flight controller: "That's space exploration for you."
"We sometimes have problems and work through them, and that's how you learn," he said. "If not tomorrow, maybe a couple of days down the road we'll get it licked."
The Dragon cargo ship's Falcon 9 rocket, also built by Space Exploration Technologies, roared to life at 10:10 a.m. ET, kicking off the second in a series of at least 12 commercial space station resupply missions under a $1.6 billion contract with NASA.
Trailing a torrent of flame from its nine Merlin 1C engines, the 157-foot-tall rocket majestically climbed away from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, launching almost directly into the plane of the space station's orbit onto a trajectory paralleling the East Coast of the United States.
Source
|
Tonight at 11:00pm Pacific / 2:00am Eastern, Dragon will begin its final approach to the space station, passing a series of GO/NO-GO points determined by both Mission Control in Houston and the SpaceX team in Hawthorne. At approximately 3:30am Pacific / 6:30am Eastern, astronauts Kevin Ford and Tom Marshburn will use the station’s robotic arm to grab Dragon.
|
This looks nice and flashy and all, but who is taking care of the base/pure/fundamental research? (or whatever you call it, to build up science from the ground up). This interests me more than who can build the flashiest rockets for the cheapest price.
Got an article where spaceX tries to figure out what dark matter is ?
|
|
|
|