nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The probes of the solar system.

JeffK88

After going through another thread about robotics and what jobs they might make obsolete, it got me thinking. Just how much automation is there with the rovers and probes exploring the solar system. Do they have to make minor decisions themselves or be given basic instructions and they fill in blanks or is it a case where operators back here on earth control every aspect of movement and process involved with the probes. Considering the vast distances between the probes Earth itself would this not lead to problems ?
With the concept of drones been deployed on Mars how would this would the delay in communications between earth and mars not cause problems in the controlling of the drones ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

JeffK88

But can SpaceX get us back to the moon or beyond? NASA and Spacex need each other. This little war in Ukraine has really benefited SpaceX due to dimensioned relations between US and Russia. If in an ideal unrealistic world where the US and Russia could just work together think of how far we could go. But maybe a new space race is whats needed to kick start interest in space.
Maybe Russia will start looking to its billionaires to fund and new space programme :rolleyes:

JeffK88

nokia69 wrote: »

who do you think built NASA hardware in the past

they are getting a far better deal from spaceX ect than they are with the SLS

Yes the hardware was built by big business but NASA ultimately controlled what was done with the hardware. The future could bring business building and taking over the space programmes.

JeffK88

Oh and with BRICS Elon Musk is South African sooooo.... So the South Africans are taking over the Space Programme :P

nokia69

JeffK88 wrote: »

But can SpaceX get us back to the moon or beyond? NASA and Spacex need each other. This little war in Ukraine has really benefited SpaceX due to dimensioned relations between US and Russia. If in an ideal unrealistic world where the US and Russia could just work together think of how far we could go. But maybe a new space race is whats needed to kick start interest in space.
Maybe Russia will start looking to its billionaires to fund and new space programme :rolleyes:

the war in Ukraine makes no difference to spaceX, there plans are still the same from day one, lower launch costs and send people to Mars

NASA were only going to pay Russia to send people to the ISS for a few years

yes spaceX will send people back to the moon and on to Mars, work has started on the BFR Mars rocket

nokia69

JeffK88 wrote: »

Oh and with BRICS Elon Musk is South African sooooo.... So the South Africans are taking over the Space Programme :P

American citizen since 2002

JeffK88

I like your optimism. I hope you're right it would be great to be part of the generation who supported the reinventing and re establishment of manned spaceflight. Finally get humanity back on course to doing what it always has done. Explore the unknown and discover new lands/worlds in this case.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What do you mean a long way behind ?

China have manned spaceflight and soft landed a rover on the moon.

India have gotten to Mars on a shoestring and their recent test sub-orbital test of the GSLV with capsule cost them just $24m numbers that should scare SpaceX because there's going to be competition in the $5Bn satellite launch market

the cost of the satellites was three times as much at $15.7Bn
http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SSIR-September-2014-Update.pdf

Chinese rockets are still primitive

their manned program is just a Russian copy

I don't think spaceX are worried by India

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

Chinese rockets are still primitive

their manned program is just a Russian copy

I don't think spaceX are worried by India

Primitive is a 1960's capsule on a 1950's ICBM. It's what the Americans use when going into space. If its stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

JeffK88 wrote: »

If in an ideal unrealistic world where the US and Russia could just work together think of how far we could go.

About the only thing the US has that the Russians need is money.

For pretty much everything else they have a simplier, cheaper and probably more reliable version.

nokia69 wrote: »

NASA were only going to pay Russia to send people to the ISS for a few years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station US Astronauts have been hitching rides on Soyuz to the ISS since 2000

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/29soyuz/

the space agency will book transportation on Soyuz launches to the space station through the end of 2017, with return trips to Earth reserved through early 2018.

Boeing is being awarded $4.2 billion to finish development of its CST-100 spacecraft, and for up to six launches;

Do I think Boeing will deliver a flight by Dec 2017, TBH I'd be surprised if there wasn't delay and overrun.

Do I think that $4.3Bn for Boeing is value for money ?
How about this from back in 2001
Now comes the question of the station depreciated cost. We have invested about 4.3 bn US dollars altogether in the Mir station, including all development and operational use phases. ( would be $5.75bn with inflation , but I wouldn't be shocked if Boeing clocked up that much if/when they get to the sixth flight)

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Primitive is a 1960's capsule on a 1950's ICBM. It's what the Americans use when going into space. If its stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

until the day it fails and the toxic hypergolic propellants kill god knows how many poor Chinese peasants

now that really is stupid

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station US Astronauts have been hitching rides on Soyuz to the ISS since 2000

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/29soyuz/
Boeing is being awarded $4.2 billion to finish development of its CST-100 spacecraft, and for up to six launches;

Do I think Boeing will deliver a flight by Dec 2017, TBH I'd be surprised if there wasn't delay and overrun.

Do I think that $4.3Bn for Boeing is value for money ?
How about this from back in 2001
Now comes the question of the station depreciated cost. We have invested about 4.3 bn US dollars altogether in the Mir station, including all development and operational use phases. ( would be $5.75bn with inflation , but I wouldn't be shocked if Boeing clocked up that much if/when they get to the sixth flight)

none of this changes what I said

the US will only use the Russians while they develop new systems

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

none of this changes what I said

the US will only use the Russians while they develop new systems

If they hadn't thrown away all the previous systems they wouldn't have to. Also apart from SpaceX who are designing new stuff, the others who have flight proven sub components to use are spending a lot of time getting them working. I'm reminded that the US spent about $10Bn on studies for the Freedom Space Station that was originally meant to cost $8Bn to build.

If Boeing can deliver on time then the US will have spent 17 years depending on Soyuz for flights to the ISS.

Capt'n Midnight

Back to probes.

NASA tried Faster, Better, Cheaper and mostly got it right but

Speaking of failure, what caused those six programs to flop? According to NASA’s FBC task force final report, most failures came from “poor communication and mistakes in engineering and management.” [/QUOTE

India has gotten to Mars and the Chinese have landed a rover on the Moon, ESA and Japan are also in the business of probes to comets and asteroids. It's no longer just NASA and the Russians exploring the solar system.

JeffK88

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back to probes.

NASA tried Faster, Better, Cheaper and mostly got it right but

Speaking of failure, what caused those six programs to flop? According to NASA’s FBC task force final report, most failures came from “poor communication and mistakes in engineering and management.” [/QUOTE

India has gotten to Mars and the Chinese have landed a rover on the Moon, ESA and Japan are also in the business of probes to comets and asteroids. It's no longer just NASA and the Russians exploring the solar system.

NASA and Russia just get more media attention:pac:

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If they hadn't thrown away all the previous systems they wouldn't have to. Also apart from SpaceX who are designing new stuff, the others who have flight proven sub components to use are spending a lot of time getting them working. I'm reminded that the US spent about $10Bn on studies for the Freedom Space Station that was originally meant to cost $8Bn to build.

If Boeing can deliver on time then the US will have spent 17 years depending on Soyuz for flights to the ISS.

ULA are working on a new rocket to replace the Atlas and Delta

Blue Origin are working on a new rocket and on a new engine, they will fly something soon

Orbital Sciences are working on a new rocket

and NASA are working on the SLS

AFAIK there is more new work being done in the US than any other country

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

ULA are working on a new rocket to replace the Atlas and Delta

Blue Origin are working on a new rocket and on a new engine, they will fly something soon

Orbital Sciences are working on a new rocket

and NASA are working on the SLS

AFAIK there is more new work being done in the US than any other country

But most of the work in the US is re-inventing the wheel.

ULA are not working on a new rocket. They announced plans to start working on a new one a few months ago that will use a Blue Origin engine.

The new launch system, its booster stage powered by new engines made by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin company, is meant to start flying in 2019 and cap a remaking of ULA as a more efficient organization.

The Blue Origin engine is being developed to reduce dependence on imported Russian engines.

Even if it is a US rocket that replaces all the "not invented here" tech that Atlas uses it's still not offering any new capabilities. The world isn't short of launchers of that size from India (sub orbital tests), Japan , China , ESA , Russia and Ukraine before you include the US offerings. Meanwhile Proton had it's 402nd launch recently. There's a lot to be said for using systems that have been debugged.

The first stage of Orbital Sciences old rocket is a pretty much a rebadged Zenit , and they've ordered a billion dollars of Russian RD-191 engines

SLS is a money pit. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-commits-to-heavy-lift-mega-rocket/

The SLS development program is projected to cost $7 billion from February 2014 through the rocket's maiden flight, a November 2018 test launch carrying an uncrewed Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle, or MPCV, on a three-week-long shakedown mission beyond the moon and back to an ocean-splashdown on Earth.

SpaceX are due to launch Falcon Heavy this year as they have paying customers lined up. It offers most of the capabilites of SLS but earlier and cheaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia#Energia_M Russian design for a 175 ton to LEO, just add more Zenit boosters to Energia.

IMHO launchers can be split into three stages.
The first stage.(punch through air and gravity drag, consider rocket sled / airplane as stage 0.5 ?) Big and dumb, cheap and reliable. There's no point in going to the nth degree trying to save weight or improve efficiency because fuel is cheap. The US is throwing way too much money at this non-problem. IIRC SpaceX spent something like $0.2m on fuel on it's barge test.

Second Stage(s) These get you into LEO OK now you can start to focus more on weight because each gram saved here means you can have a much lighter first stage. But reliability is critical which is why for some designs (Russian / early Atlas) you've had the engines on since launch instead of starting them in flight. Consider cryogenics here.

Third Stage. Now you are in LEO , if that's what you wanted job done. If not, you have plenty of time. What matters here most is total Delta-V. Thrust isn't that important unless it's reduce the total mass by needing less life support for humans or you are using the Orbeth Effect in a flyby. Unless you have a good reason not to you can use hall effect thrusters and other forms of solar powered electric propulsion. For a GEO satellite this means months getting to orbit but huge savings on station keeping mass too , depending on the mission for a planetary probe this could even translate to reducing first stage mass by half. But no, the US is throwing billions at the first two stages, when this is the place where savings really count (unless you are only going to LEO) and because a stable orbit means you have the luxury of time mad stuff like electric tethering or solar sails can be considered.

Cryogenic are really only of use for getting humans to escape velocity because you are back to the Hypergolics if you need longer term storage for manoeuvring or descending later on.

Flight of fancy for Mars. Hydrogen Peroxide has low energy density but it means oxygen and water , handy stuff to have around if you have an Apollo 13 on the way to Mars , though electrolysis and recycling of water is obviously the best way to get Oxygen on the trip.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But most of the work in the US is re-inventing the wheel.

ULA are not working on a new rocket. They announced plans to start working on a new one a few months ago that will use a Blue Origin engine. The Blue Origin engine is being developed to reduce dependence on imported Russian engines.

ULA are working on a new rocket

Blue Origin will supply the engine for the first stage, and work will be done on the upper stage, its a new rocket, they will also be working on reuse, because if they don't then they will have to leave the launch business

evolving_doors

im standing on a chair now to raise my IQ in line with the stuff being said here.

Rocket science... on AH! well I never.

Who controlls it OP?
Y. M.
and if it doesn't work then they try blasting it.

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

ULA are working on a new rocket

Blue Origin will supply the engine for the first stage, and work will be done on the upper stage, its a new rocket, they will also be working on reuse, because if they don't then they will have to leave the launch business

Even if it's new and doesn't rely on foreign imports what will make it stand out from the pack ?

They don't have a history of competing on cost. ULA more or less have a monopoly on US military launches and getting way above market rate for them.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1409/17ulablueorigin/ says that they are replacing the engines rather than a new rocket ,

"We intend to stack on top of that the common components that we've developed in the upper stages that we already have in our Atlas and Delta family," Bruno said. "So it's really inserting an engine, modifications to the rocket to accommodate that, and then reaping the benefit of that higher performance."

Anyone remember Hayabusa ?
A Japanese probe that returned samples from an asteroid ?
In December they launched another one.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Solar_System_exploration
India may be going to Venus in May
Next year they may have a rover on the Moon and their first orbit of their Orbital Vehicle , they tested re-entry of the crew module last year.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-u-s-air-force-to-enter-mediation-over-ula-blockbuy/

WASHINGTON – SpaceX and the U.S. Air Force will enter mediation later this month to resolve a lawsuit SpaceX filed contesting an $11 billion sole-source contract the Air Force gave United Launch Alliance to produce enough rocket cores to launch dozens of military satellites, according to court documents filed Jan. 13.

The new documents also raise questions about when the Air Force will make its first competitive launch contract award in nearly 15 years.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Even if it's new and doesn't rely on foreign imports what will make it stand out from the pack ?

nothing really

but it should offer better performance than the Atlas or Delta at a lower cost which is what they should have been doing years ago

I'm not a fan of ULA, they do have good rockets but they have used their monopoly position to rip-off the US tax payer

I think its possible that Bezos could end up owning ULA