[X] My Assistant

[djellison]

Just listening to the MRO conference. Highlights included...

1) 5.4 Mbits is the highest MRO data rate (not the 4 I thought)
2) An extra 50-ish KG of fuel puts it's low-altitude orbit life thru to the next decade.
3) MTO HAS BEEN CANCELLED

What the HELL!

They say that MSL can still do its mission with just MRO as it's relay capacity will suffice.

But that means less science data during an MRO extension

Seems a bit short sighted.

Doug

[dvandorn]

Reply to Bruce:

The technologies required for the types of life-support systems you'll need for deep space exploration is *already* being developed on Earth, at far less expense than testing it out on an orbital space station. It doesn't make sense to start flying such systems in space until you've developed one that works well in simulations on the ground. And the tests have been underway for years, now.

As for ISS being so unlike a deep space mission technologically (i.e., it needs resupply, it has no closed-loop life support system, etc.), that's not the point. Consider Gemini -- it contributed almost *nothing* to Apollo in terms of technology. Apollo was designed before Gemini -- and if you think NASA has a bad NIH problem in regards the Russians, you should have seen NAA in regards to McDonnell-Douglas when it came to taking advice from Gemini experience.

Gemini was absolutely essential to the success of Apollo because it taught NASA how to fly the missions. It taught NASA how to train the crews, how to train the misson controllers, and how to manage a real-time mission that lasted up to two weeks.

There was *absolutely* no other reason to fly Gemini than to provide the kind of real-world experience to the appropriate NASA centers and agencies that was required before they could even *think* about attempting the Apollo flight profiles.

I think that NASA could not have effectively *flown* a long-duration mission (of 6 months or longer) to deep space without having done it in LEO several times. Many, many times -- enough times to have encountered all of the various problems that can possibly come up due to the length of flight and the inevitable breakdown and servicing of the equipment.

The details of the equipment do not matter as much as the processes you develop, both in the crews and on the ground, to manage all of the contingencies. I simply do not believe that NASA could have transitioned straight from two-week shuttle missions into 9-month to 3-year deep space missions without flying some intermediate step, like a LEO station.

And face it, international or not, you have the same problems justifying *any* LEO station from a scientific standpoint. LEO stations are just not really justifiable from a scientific standpoint -- almost everything you can do on a manned LEO station can be done far more cheaply (and usually just as well) on an unmanned platform.

In my opinion, ISS is justified by providing the operational experience you need to consider mounting long-duration deep space missions. That is its only justification, just as operational preparation for Apollo was the only justification for the Gemini program.

And I do understand that long-duration mission management experience *did* exist, it was just all Russian. But I still insist that it is unreasonable to expect NASA to be able to learn the real operational lessons they needed to learn from Russia's operational experiences. When it comes to operational experience, it is almost impossible to learn from other programs, and especially from other cultures. You can codify that experience, turn it into management theory, create process specifications from it, and then teach it -- but even then, you don't really learn it unless you *do* it.

-the other Doug