Manned Missions, where next?

Kidchameleon

Hi All,

I'm just wondering what all you guys/gals think will be the next target for a manned mission? The moon, an asteroid or Mars? It would seem that from President Obama's speech that the next place will be an asteroid. But how likely is this? After all, we were all sure we were headed back to the moon with Constellation until the budget was cut... Also, do you think another agency besides NASA will be conducting a manned mission?

Regards,

Kid.

lord lucan

An asteroid seems to be the next stop based on recommendations to Obama. Personally i don't see the point tbh. Even though we've done the whole moon landing thing already,part of me would love to see one in my lifetime. Imagine the images we'd get with modern photo equipment!!

In my opinion the next logical step other than the moon is Mars. Problem is it's going to take a long time. Assuming we get the equipment to do the job,they'd first have to send a manned craft to Mars,orbit around it and come back just to prove we can go that far. That throws up the whole aspect of "can we go that long in a small spacecraft without cracking up" scenario as the average flight time is reckoned to be 7 months,unless of course we develop better propulsion in the meantime. It'd also be a tough assignment,travel all that way and not be able to land,much like Apollo 10,where they simulated a landing to within a short distance of the Lunar surface but didn't actually land.

The bigger problem in all this though is funding. NASA is being strangled at the moment. Obama's plan is for private enterprise to carry the burden of getting astronauts to space in association with NASA. On the one hand it could be a great thing as increased competition could lead to new technological breakthroughs but i'm always dubious when it comes to a business who's motive is profit. 5 years ago i would have said we'll see a Mars landing in my lifetime but now i don't think so. The innovation,sense of exploration isn't there anymore. Apollo showed what we can do when resources are in place and a goal is there to reach for. Sadly to me it seems we're going through the motions with human spaceflight now.:(

BULLER

lord lucan wrote: »

Assuming we get the equipment to do the job,they'd first have to send a manned craft to Mars,orbit around it and come back just to prove we can go that far. That throws up the whole aspect of "can we go that long in a small spacecraft without cracking up" scenario as the average flight time is reckoned to be 7 months,unless of course we develop better propulsion in the meantime.

Am I the only one on this forum who believes the opposite?! 5 years ago I had given up on ever seeing a manned mars mission. Constallation was diverting funds from propulsion systems that could get us to Mars! Now I'm slightly more optimistic...

“NASA decided to cancel all of its advanced propulsion and power programs in order to finance Constellation, which basically was a repeat of the Apollo program,” Chang-Diaz said. “So we were going to do the Constellation Program and go to the moon. Then what? You can't go to Mars with the Constellation hardware.”

Chemical rockets for trips anywhere other than our own moon just dont fit the bill!! The amount of fuel needed would be astronomical (pun intended). To explore the solar system we need either thermonuclear rockets or more favourably ion rockets power by space rated fission reactors (which have the Specific Imp necessary). These need R&D (money) to become a reality, which Obama is funding.

lord lucan wrote: »

The bigger problem in all this though is funding. NASA is being strangled at the moment. Obama's plan is for private enterprise to carry the burden of getting astronauts to space in association with NASA. On the one hand it could be a great thing as increased competition could lead to new technological breakthroughs but i'm always dubious when it comes to a business who's motive is profit. 5 years ago i would have said we'll see a Mars landing in my lifetime but now i don't think so.

Does Obama's budget not increase funding? The retirement of the shuttle will also free up vast amounts of that budget.

I think the commersialision of LEO is a fantastic step forward. The idea is that NASA is freed up to develop technologies that will get manned spaceflight out of Earths gravity well for the first time.

Kidchameleon

Found this great video about possible asteroid mission:

http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=NEOnauts2

lord lucan

While in theory the new way forward sounds great,i'm deeply skeptical that all these groups can work together for a common goal and not get sidetracked by profit. I hope it works but i'm reserving judgement until i see how it plays out.

Hauk

lord lucan wrote: »

While in theory the new way forward sounds great,i'm deeply skeptical that all these groups can work together for a common goal and not get sidetracked by profit. I hope it works but i'm reserving judgement until i see how it plays out.

I don't think so. Look at the success that is the ISS.

I think it's doable to a NEO, but I think we should really push to go to the Moon.

I would love to see a permanent lunar habitat. What way to spur public interest in the space program again by actually putting a permanent human presence on the moon.

The average joe on the street doesn't hear about Obama cancelling this, or an administrator at NASA losing his job. They care about the good stuff.

And to me, it's doable with todays technology. And I would love to see the look on people's faces of a lunar landing in High-Def on a 42 inch screen. It would be great for spurring interest in space science as well.

Imagine how many school children would think about space science when you simply point at the moon and say "There are people up there."

It's doable!

Sorry, I'm in a melancholic mood today, and needed to cheer myself up.

lord lucan

Hauk wrote: »

I don't think so. Look at the success that is the ISS.

I think it's doable to a NEO, but I think we should really push to go to the Moon.

I would love to see a permanent lunar habitat. What way to spur public interest in the space program again by actually putting a permanent human presence on the moon.

The average joe on the street doesn't hear about Obama cancelling this, or an administrator at NASA losing his job. They care about the good stuff.

And to me, it's doable with todays technology. And I would love to see the look on people's faces of a lunar landing in High-Def on a 42 inch screen. It would be great for spurring interest in space science as well.

Imagine how many school children would think about space science when you simply point at the moon and say "There are people up there."

It's doable!

Sorry, I'm in a melancholic mood today, and needed to cheer myself up.

Yeah,i was saying in my first post,and i suppose for purely selfish reasons too,i'd love to see a moon landing in my lifetime. With the multimedia technology we have now i can only imagine the pictures and video we'd get to see.

As to a Lunar base,yeah,it'd definitely get the publics interest. People get excited when they can see something physically. Remember last years launch of Endeavour when we could see her streak across the sky after launch? The A&S forum was probably the busiest forum on Boards that night. Even the wife was flabbergasted by it and she's no interest in Space or Astronomy whatsoever! So imagine being able to point at the Moon,something we get to see most of the time in our sky,and know that there's humans up there living and working,it'd be fantastic and maybe spur on a new generation of kids to explore our universe further.

The common argument against it is that we've been there and done that. Well we never set up a habitation on the Moon. We roamed it on buggies,collected all manner of samples and then we came home. Why not go to the Moon and set up a base. It could be the starting block of a future push to Mars. Who knows what new Propulsion technologies we'll have in years to come that will make it easier to launch a long distance run to Mars.

As most will have guessed by now i'm a big fan of the Space Shuttle. It's been the transportation to space for most of my years,i grew up with it so to speak. But i'll be the first to acknowledge that we've done LEO to death at this stage,the ISS only has another 10 years left and Hubble has had it's last fix so we're effectively done with LEO so it's time to move on. If it means using 'old' technology to do so in the interim to get us there than so be it. No point in waiting around until we've tested to death a new method of propulsion.

Hauk

Aye, I'm fond of the shuttle myself. But the operating costs are shocking.

I'd never seen so many posts last year when Endeavour passed over. It was brilliant "WOT WUZ DAT??"

The common argument against it is that we've been there and done that. Well we never set up a habitation on the Moon. We roamed it on buggies,collected all manner of samples and then we came home. Why not go to the Moon and set up a base. It could be the starting block of a future push to Mars. Who knows what new Propulsion technologies we'll have in years to come that will make it easier to launch a long distance run to Mars.

Exactly. I really think propulsion/materials research is at the tipping point at the moment. Lots of research, and lots of prototypes being tested.

As most will have guessed by now i'm a big fan of the Space Shuttle. It's been the transportation to space for most of my years,i grew up with it so to speak. But i'll be the first to acknowledge that we've done LEO to death at this stage,the ISS only has another 10 years left and Hubble has had it's last fix so we're effectively done with LEO so it's time to move on. If it means using 'old' technology to do so in the interim to get us there than so be it. No point in waiting around until we've tested to death a new method of propulsion.

Aye, it has been done to death. I'd be more content with using the old means of propulsion to get to the moon. We know the space environment out that far. \o/

And the avionic control systems we have today are FAR superior to the lunar lander's system. Landing on the moon isn't as complicated(or at least, unknown) as it was 30 years ago.

Here's hopin! *fingerscrossed*

Beeker

I think we all agree that we should as a species push forward into the universe. Back to the Moon and on to NEO and Mars is the first step. How long will it be before we do that....well that’s the problem at the moment. NASA is getting out of manned flight for a while but without a "Mission" or time scale to work to, I can see a big gap developing in US manned flights. I am all for the commercializing of spaceflight but without the government pushing this forward it may never happen. NASA should develop and fly manned spacecraft as they have clearly shown they can, and then they could pass it over to a commercial operator to continue. To stop flying first and wait for industry to catch-up is crazy and something I think the US will regret in a few years as the Russians, Chinese and Indians move forward in space.
I can only hope that NASA are able to develop better propulsion systems and the technology needed to fly manned missions beyond LEO. Maybe then NASA will get the go ahead to get back into manned flight.
For myself I don't see it. I think we are coming to the end of a golden age of exploration, the likes of which we may never see again:(

BULLER

Hauk wrote: »

Exactly. I really think propulsion/materials research is at the tipping point at the moment. Lots of research, and lots of prototypes being tested.

And the avionic control systems we have today are FAR superior to the lunar lander's system. Landing on the moon isn't as complicated(or at least, unknown) as it was 30 years ago.

A few systems may have been drastically improved since then, but the principle one, the method of getting there, remains the exact same and just as expensive.

Beeker wrote: »

For myself I don't see it. I think we are coming to the end of a golden age of exploration, the likes of which we may never see again:(

Very negative outlook for the future, I think it will take time but we're only at the beginning of manned flight! I'm sure there will
Believe me, I would have loved nothing more than to see man back on the moon on my 42inch 1080p tv... :rolleyes: *day dreams*
But I just dont think it was feasible with current technology still essentially the same (as expensive) as the 1969.
There's a lot of uncertainty out there with the new plan, but the old plan was also a massive risk. It would of taken 15 years of praactically zero investment in new technologies to reach the moon again. Then what? To setup perminent habitation is simply too expensive, otherwise it would have been done back then.

Bobby Braun (Nasa Chief Technologist) said between the lines what was wrong with Constellation:

• It stopped or slowed down all technology research that will get manned flight out of Earths gravity well.
• It was only focused on one goal (the moon).
• It killed of our research platform in space (ISS).

The Saturn V was going to be the launch vehicle of choice for lunar exploration in the 1970's, which is partly why NASA saw so many dreams put on hold. It was just too expensive to send three people to the Moon on a throw-away rocket over and over again.

.....Programs like Constellation will only delay that concentration on perfecting the fundamental technology of space flight.

Beeker

BULLER wrote: »

A Very negative outlook for the future, I think it will take time but we're only at the beginning of manned flight! I'm sure there will

Your right of course. I'm just in mourning for the end of the Shuttle era. It has been a hugh part of my life since the begining in 81. Just dont want to let go:(
It would be easier if there was a plan or path set out with clear goals. But there is not, all we have is dreams, wishes and talk.
To move forward you need a clear objective and the resourses to achive it. Without this there will be a gap and a loss of experience. It may take some time to get that back.

Beeker

Great strides in propulsion already:)

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1006/01vasimr/