IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Manned Orion mission to an asteroid...
Guest_PhilCo126_*
post Dec 22 2007, 05:52 PM
Post #1





Guests






This could take place before the Moon-landings: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace...ecbccdrcrd.html

huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GregM
post Dec 23 2007, 04:45 AM
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 123
Joined: 21-February 05
Member No.: 175



It's a great idea, and worthy of pursuing.

[POLITICAL COMMENTS AND MANNED VS UNMANNED DISCUSSION DELETED]
Forum Guidlines
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stu
post Dec 23 2007, 10:00 AM
Post #3


The Poet Dude
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 5551
Joined: 15-March 04
From: Kendal, Cumbria, UK
Member No.: 60



That has to be the most ungainly, unbalanced, ugly, fragile-looking spacecraft combo I've ever seen in my life. ohmy.gif

I LOVE it! When do we go?!?!?! biggrin.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Dec 23 2007, 05:07 PM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



Actually, depending on the time frame, it doesn't necessarily make sense to alter the LSAM design for this mission (as has been done in the illustration that accompanies the story). You don't really need the same kind of landing gear, etc., to anchor to an asteroid as you would to land on the Moon, so unless you already have LSAMs built and available, it doesn't really make sense to use that design when you are in a position to design a mission module more appropriate to the mission.

Since the crew will have to live in the CEV and the mission module for the entire flight, the asteroid version of the Orion configuration will need to carry more consumables and less propellants than a lunar version. A lot of this will come in the form of food and water -- items that are bulky and (especially in the case of food) not all that easy to just plop into a tank welded onto the outside of an existing descent stage design.

What makes more sense for a mission of this type is an asteroid mission module that likely would resemble an ISS lab module more than it would look like an LSAM. The only landing equipment you need is a flat bus that actually contacts the surface and piton-like grapnels to keep the whole stack attached -- you don't need a specialized descent stage with its own separable propulsion system. You don't need a separable ascent stage at all, the mission module can come back with you as easily as not (since you have almost zero gravity well to climb back out of after your surface explorations are finished).

So, instead of being a several-month mission cramped into the cabins of the CEV and LSAM, you'd be better off dusting off an ISS hab module design, fitting it out with any specialized gear (like grapnels, etc.) for "landing" operations, and using it instead of an LSAM. You're going to need such a hab module for a flight to Mars in any event, might as well get started gaining experience for such a module by designing it to be used on an asteroid recon.

Remember the rationale behind the Constellation architecture -- the CEV (i.e., the Orion capsule) is a common ferry that, with modest changes, can be used for a variety of missions. In each mission, it serves mostly as a transport from the Earth to LEO and then back from LEO or a deep-space trajectory to Earth. The specific mission defines the type(s) of mission modules that the Orion will operate with. For a lunar mission, you use an LSAM. For a Mars mission, you have a much larger complex of mission modules that support transit activities, Mars orbit activities, and of course Mars surface activities. For an asteroid mission, you'd just naturally have a different type and design of mission module, one suited properly to the mission at hand.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Dec 23 2007, 05:26 PM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



I like Doug's module idea. But I have a different take on actual exploration of the asteroid. Just keep the craft in orbit and send the astronauts out in jet packs -- or attached to some kind of jet pack bus. Gravity is so minimal that no landing craft is necessary IMHO.


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyford
post Dec 23 2007, 06:21 PM
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1281
Joined: 18-December 04
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 124



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Dec 23 2007, 09:07 AM) *
So, instead of being a several-month mission cramped into the cabins of the CEV and LSAM, you'd be better off dusting off an ISS hab module design, fitting it out with any specialized gear (like grapnels, etc.) for "landing" operations, and using it instead of an LSAM.

Sounds like a good time to rethink TransHab....*

Apollo on steroids or not, I can't imagine 3 months trapped in the CEV. Something like the Apollo Venus flyby would perhaps be fitting:

Attached Image


I hope I don't trigger any moderator flame war threshold if I say that this is finally a manned mission that I could get really excited about. It feels like we are "going somewhere."

*Or else just wait to buy one from Bigelow?


--------------------
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Dec 23 2007, 06:22 PM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Dec 23 2007, 12:26 PM) *
Just keep the craft in orbit...

I assume you mean in orbit of the sun, paralleling the asteroid's orbit, and
not in orbit of the asteroid.

It seems the astronaut excursions would be most similar to spacewalks.
Would they be done using an umbilical? If so, without landing the craft,
the umbilical would be very long. But trying to land an astronaut without
an umbilical may be unacceptably dangerous. Remember the attempt
to land the Minerva mini-lander on the asteroid Itokawa ... it missed!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Dec 24 2007, 01:43 AM
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Dec 23 2007, 10:22 AM) *
Remember the attempt
to land the Minerva mini-lander on the asteroid Itokawa ... it missed!


If Minerva was sentient and had maneuverable thrusters, I suspect it would have been as easy as hitting a barn door.


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Dec 24 2007, 01:57 AM
Post #9


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Definitely agree that the astronauts for this would need some sort of habitat module, or they'd be wearing rubber chickens on their heads before they got home. Question, though: Are any of the ISS module designs suitable for any of the current EELVs (thinking Atlas V or Delta IV Heavy here), or the Ares evolutes? We can't forget that we'll be losing Shuttle lift capability well before this mission becomes possible.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Dec 24 2007, 02:08 AM
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



Don't forget Falcon 9 in these what-if scenarios. SpaceX are anticipating 12,000 kg to GTO. Delta IV Heavy is supposed to be 13,000 kg max to GTO.

That said, I have no idea what the mass of those modules is.


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Dec 24 2007, 02:37 AM
Post #11


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Not to mention fairing diameters, loads, vibes, etc. Hopefully somebody's thinking about all this. ISS hardware's pretty evolved by now, and it would be smart to re-use the designs if feasible.

IIRC, the Shuttle can lift 50,000 lbs to LEO (22,680 Kg).


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elakdawalla
post Dec 24 2007, 04:09 AM
Post #12


Administrator
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 5172
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth
Member No.: 454



I just have to add the totally unconstructive comment that every time I look at the title of this topic, I think it says "Manned Onion mission to an asteroid..."

--Emily


--------------------
My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Dec 24 2007, 04:16 AM
Post #13


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



tongue.gif ...well, I'm sure that Orion will get at least one article in there over the next few years, so you're forgiven!

The very thought of a manned Onion mission is gastrically & olofactorally disturbing, though; half the payload would have to consist of antacids & the other half of gas-mask filters. Plus one hell of a heat-resistant coating...we don't want it to be "bloomin'" on reentry... rolleyes.gif


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ilbasso
post Dec 24 2007, 03:46 PM
Post #14


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: 23-October 04
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Member No.: 103



The ISS modules are developed, but one thing that is missing in their current incarnation is a power source, since ISS modules all get their power from the shared solar arrays. I assume you'd be able to bolt on some large-ish solar panels to the design.

It would be interesting to see what the solution is for an astronaut keeping him/herself on the surface when the gravity is so low. Do you have a jetpack that applies a small "down" thrust all the time? How do you keep the thrust vector pointed toward the asteroid center when the astronaut is bending over or moving about? If the asteroid has as much void space and is as loosely packed as Itokawa, I think it would be risky to rely on spikes or pitons to tie yourself down.


--------------------
Jonathan Ward
Manning the LCC at http://www.apollolaunchcontrol.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Dec 24 2007, 03:53 PM
Post #15


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



I'd bet that the astronauts would remain tethered to the vehicle itself rather than the asteroid; obviously, this is the safe way to go. Might actually be smarter to move the CEV/module combo to several locations of interest on the rock rather than to allow the astronauts to roam the surface independently; seems too easy to accidentally kick yourself into the void, because easy rescue doesn't appear to be an option...


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:21 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.