FLEX PATH

[frigate]

Это откуда взято?

FLEX PATH :wink:

Future space capabilities for an ambitious civil space program
by John C. Mankins Monday, February 22, 2010

[frigate]

For NASA no easy answer for next space destination
Where to next?
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer, WASHINGTON
The Seattle Times

Where to next?

It's a simple question that NASA can't answer so easily anymore. The veteran space shuttle fleet is months from being mothballed and the White House has nixed a previous plan to fly to the moon.

For the first time in decades, NASA has no specific space destination for its next stop, although it has lots of places it wants to go. Future space flight, NASA officials say, now depends on new rocket science and where it can take us.

That uncertainty may not sit well with Congress, which will be grilling NASA chief Charles Bolden on Wednesday and Thursday in the first hearings since the George W. Bush moon mission was shelved.

There are only a few places in space where humans can go in the next couple of decades. NASA wants to go to all of them, with the ultimate destination, as always, being Mars.

"The suite of destinations has not changed over time," NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said in an interview. "The moon, asteroids, Mars - if you're going to go anywhere - is where we are going."

But with any itinerary there is a first stop. So what is that?

Check back in a couple of years. That's when new technology should be developed enough to answer that question, Garver said. President Barack Obama plans to divert billions of dollars from the Bush moon plan toward developing better rocketry.

"The best way to get anywhere ... is really invest in technologies that will reduce the cost, reduce the time, reduce the risk and so forth," Garver said.

Some of those technologies seem like science fiction. The possibilities noted by experts inside and outside of NASA include the equivalent of an in-orbit gas station, electric-hybrid rockets, nuclear thermal rockets, inflatable parts for spaceships, and methods of beaming power between Earth and space.

Former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz, who has developed a new type of electric propulsion engine called VASIMR that the NASA leadership mentions specifically, said this new emphasis is especially welcome because six years ago NASA killed its advanced rocket technology program.

"We clearly need the technology leap if we really want to go to Mars," Chang-Diaz said. "We are not going to Mars on chemical rockets."

advertising

Chemical rockets are what has always been used to get into space and they require carrying lots of expensive fuel. Electric propulsion would get better mileage, but versions so far don't have nearly enough thrust to get off Earth.

To some critics, however, technology isn't as important as a destination. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who will be chairing Wednesday's Senate subcommittee hearing, plans to push for some kind of commitment and specific plan of action.

"The president is the only one that can lead the space program, and he ought to set a goal," Nelson said in an e-mail. "He needs to say where we're going and let NASA design the architecture to do it."

Former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern said he's waiting to hear what NASA officials outline in the Capitol Hill hearings, but he too has concerns about not having a precise destination.

"We need a destination and a timetable and that's really lacking," Stern said. He said that relying on technology to dictate a location "sounds like a program to nowhere."

Because human spaceflight is about inspiration, science and international cooperation, Stern said, "you need a specific destination, a proper noun, something that's capitalized."

The outline for much of NASA's future was sketched out by an independent spaceflight panel the White House appointed last year. Led by retired Lockheed Martin Chairman Norman Augustine, the panel laid out options, including canceling an immediate return to the moon and instead proposing a "flexible path."

Panel member Chris Chyba, a professor of astrophysics and public affairs at Princeton University, said just because the flexible path doesn't point to a specific starting point doesn't mean it's without a goal.

"You begin by saying what your goal is, not what your destination is," Chyba said. "And the goal is the human expansion into the solar system."

The spaceflight panel charted a possible roadmap, based on the easiest trips first, such as a flight to the moon but no landing. Next might be any of a handful of points in space where the gravitational pull between the Earth and the moon, or the Earth and the sun are equal. Such locations are places of engineering importance because future space telescopes and other science satellites are slated to go there and this would allow astronauts to repair them. But they risk ridicule as flights to nowhere, Chyba said.

Then the panel suggested landing on a near-Earth asteroid, followed by flights to and around Mars and landing on a Martian moon. The panel also noted that landing on Earth's moon is "an obvious alternative" to Mars, maybe after an asteroid mission and serving as a possible training stop for other flights. The space agency also might still opt to go to the moon before anywhere else, NASA's Garver said.

Several experts believe the most sensible place for astronauts to go first is an asteroid.

"If the goal is ultimately the human exploration of Mars," landing on an object near Earth is a logical first step because it's easier, says Donald Yeomans, chief of NASA's near Earth object program.

What asteroids offer is a lack of gravity, making it easy to leave. Landing on larger objects, such as the moon and Mars, would require the extra but expensive thrust that chemical rockets provide, demonstrating the need for a hybrid vehicle.

Visiting an asteroid would have the appeal of some place new, would provide legitimate scientific study and could even help scientists figure out how to save Earth from some future killer asteroid, Stern said.

Another of the key points in future spaceflight will be the ability to stop in space to refuel or even switch vehicles, said NASA's new chief technologist Bobby Braun.

The future for NASA is not about future space destinations, contends MIT astronautics professor Ed Crawley, a member of the White House-appointed panel.

"It's about the journey," he said. "It's a journey of technology. It's a journey of discovery. It's a journey of capability. It's a journey away from the cradle. At some point we have to learn how to leave the planet."

Даже процитировали КЭЦ - правда, по частям насчёт Земли и колыбели....  

[zyxman]

А кто знает, как оно было 40 лет назад?
В смысле решение о Шаттле тоже где-то так-же принималось?

[frigate]

При личном участии президента Ричарда Никсона в 1972 году.

President Richard M. Nixon and NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher announced the Space Shuttle program
had received final approval in San Clemente, California, on 5 January 1972.
Книги на эту тему:

[frigate]

Документ по бюджету НАСА Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) выложен здесь:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf

[zyxman]

При личном участии президента Ричарда Никсона в 1972 году.

Спасибо!

Я в смысле что Шаттл задумали и обсуждали, и даже аннонсировали официальное начало проекта еще до того как закрыли Аполлон?
В смысле что не было такой растерянности как сейчас?

[frigate]

При личном участии президента Ричарда Никсона в 1972 году.

Спасибо!

Я в смысле что Шаттл задумали и обсуждали, и даже аннонсировали официальное начало проекта еще до того как закрыли Аполлон?
В смысле что не было такой растерянности как сейчас?

Растерянности не было - просто 6 лет США не проводили пилотируемую программу с 1975 по 1981 годы,
при этом из-за задержки с шаттлом Скайлэб сошел с орбиты в 1979 году.  :idea:

[ronatu]

WASHINGTON – NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday.

President Barack Obama's proposed budget kills the previous administration's return-to-the-moon mission, sometimes nicknamed "Apollo on steroids." That leaves the space agency adrift without a goal or destination, senators and outside experts said at a Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee hearing, the first since Obama unveiled his new space plan this month.

On top of that the nation's space shuttle fleet is only months away from long-planned retirement, an issue for senators from Florida, where NASA is a major employer. And while the new NASA plan includes extra money — $6 billion over five years — for private spaceships and developing new rocket technology, NASA shouldn't be just about spending, the senators said. It should be about John F. Kennedy-like vision.
.........

[ronatu]

[ronatu]

"Resources without vision is a waste of time and money," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100225/ap_on_sc/us_sci_nasa_hearing

[ronatu]

"Конгрессмены из Флориды начали работу над продлением миссии" :wink:      :wink:

[ronatu]

NASA turned on by blow-up space stations [/size]


NASA is planning to investigate making inflatable space-station modules to make roomier, lighter, cheaper-to-launch spacecraft, it reveals in its budget proposal released on 22 February. We look into the technologies involved.

What are the attractions of inflatable spacecraft?

The weight of material that must be boosted to orbit is the major contributor to a space mission's cost, due to the expense of sending anything into Earth orbit. Folded fabric packages that inflate, concertina style, to full size once in orbit offer more spacecraft volume for a given launch mass than a traditional metal-based unit.

Where did the idea come from?
.......................................

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18607-nasa-turned-on-by-blowup-space-stations.html

[Зомби. Просто Зомби]

Надувная станция - это хорошо.
Это о многом говорит.
Действительно о многом :roll:
 :mrgreen:

[ronatu]

NASA JSC Project M Video[/size]

I love this idea - this is Future of the Space Exploration.

[ronatu]

По моуму уже было но...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc&feature=channel

[ronatu]

[ronatu]

When operating Robonaut, a human must control forty-three individual degrees of freedom. Because Robonaut is anthropomorphic, the logical method of control is one of a master-slave relationship whereby the operator's motions are essentially mimicked by the robot. Credit: NASA

[ronatu]

When operating Robonaut, a human must control forty-three individual degrees of freedom. Because Robonaut is anthropomorphic, the logical method of control is one of a master-slave relationship whereby the operator's motions are essentially mimicked by the robot. Credit: NASA

[SpaceR]

ronatu
Трижды повторенная мысль становится убедительнее?  

А вообще в целом имхо направление позитивное. Первые серьёзные шаги к японской идее "деревеньки лунных роботов".
А заодно - мощнейшая платформа, интересная частникам - как для "собственников" лунных территорий,  так и любителей внеземных аттракц... в смысле Entertainment-a.

P.S. И Зомби наверняка порадуется, какое подходящее направление для обоснования ЛОС...

[Ну-и-ну]

На ЛОС надо реальный ИИ посадить, чтобы дистанционно управлял туповатыми робонавтами "на местах". Вот это будет номер.