Newt

Overall, it seems that there is a wide bit of discrepancy, as has been pointed out already, between 'wanting' and 'needing' to go, the line seems to be drawn over amount of risk. If it was absolutely needed, we could launch really soon with lots of launches, lots of re-purposed devices, and lots of risk, as we will be testing new hardware by using it, and if it fails we will have to deal with it as it happens. I do not think that anyone in the field of spaceflight really wants that, however. If the funds were available in endless heaps of ready cash, a few years would be reasonable at the least, and it would again, depend on why we are going. There are some who want to go simply for flags, footprints, and a bit of surface material, some who want colonization, and some who want extensive science missions based on landings of teleop robots and humans in orbit, not to mention the many other mission profiles proposed. Each of these have differing amounts of technologies and preparations to be made, so it is difficult to really say what the length of time would be. I would however, hesitate to jump on any bandwagon of people saying that x or y mission will happen in any length of time. Manned Mars missions have been coming in the next several years since the sixties, as have sample return missions, it would seem. It is difficult to gauge which of these, if any have any real potential, and certain of them (Mars One, for instance) have been already debated here extensively. The conclusion seems to be unfavorable. There is much that must be done to determine the needs of a manned Mars flight, that operates on sense and preparation, rather than mere hype.

What about the release of the new Mars Global Geologic Map, SIM-3292? Or the arrival of the light from SN2014J, a nearby supernova type 1a? Those seem certainly important and 'spacey', although somewhat different from the bulk of your list thus far.

It seems to me like it would be possible, provided that the boom is along the spin axis. Of course, if you are trying to also keep one side of the satellite pointed at the sun, there will be problems. And a high acceleration to track a precise target would be needed, so as to follow it and get back. That seems like a lot of areas where something could go wrong. In the US, you would need a ham license. Reading some into it, the FCC regulates the bands that people of three ham classes can use (there are also three classes in Australia), though you should be able to communicate on one of those bands that are available. It would appear that for the first level license in Australia, you need to use a commercially produced transmitter only, and there are some fairly strict rules regarding transmission strength. Also there are limitations on what you can do in the bands, i.e., on the 80m band in USA, only morse code at 200W or less. Probably the station would be between 6 and .23m if we are going by the US's rules. Alas, we seem to be mostly not around the equator, which adds challenges also on whether we will be able to reliably contact the satellite.

Many thanks for the explanations, K^2 and MBrobick. If all you are wanting to do is point 'down' reliably, could it not be easier to use a passive means? I know on some communications satellites people have set up extendable booms that have weights on the far end, and those leverage the satellite to always point at Earth. We could probably do the same thing with, say, a tape measurer, with something of mass on the end (maybe something of other practical use, maybe just ballast), and use motors to roll the measurer out a decided length. I have done that with LEGO parts, in 1g, and it seems pretty reliably to work. I can start looking into the maths for it. Regarding the ground radios, I really believe that we should look into the rules of the countries where we are putting them up; there are rules that address the communication with orbital radio stations, and amateur radio communication in general in many countries. I have not heard anything here that I know violates any of those rules, but it would be wise to figure that out sooner than later. Not all of our needs are hard- and soft- ware, some are legal too.

Is establishing rotation at a high acceleration at all important? Certainly, we cannot be left drifting without any control to speak of, but it seems preferable to have just what is needed, and possibly reducing the size and mass of the torquer could free up space/mass for other hardware, possibly for the redundancy in this and other systems. Excuse me if any of this has already been addressed, the bulk of posts makes it difficult to quickly understand what precisely is decided on or against.

Also, for the antenna, we have to find a frequency that works with all the countries that we will be receiving in, and the licenses of the station operators therefore. You cannot plan to transmit commands in a band that is illegal to use (well, maybe), no matter how efficient it is, and doing this is several different countries complicates matters. Additionally, I agree with concern about a directional antenna, already needed are rotation for the experiment, it sounds like, and proper orientation to receive sunlight. Trying to track both the sun and a ground station, while spinning no less, is going to be a challenge. Easier just to align the sun to the axis of rotation,and have the solar panels there, with the antenna sticking out somewhere (or several antennae?). Of course, that takes a lot more power, on both ends. Oh, and, hi! I would be interested in contributing.

Rodion, I see your point. I guess it boils down to guessing how you can get public support. NASA and the USA government have the technology to do a better live stream, I am certain. They just do not have the infrastructure, or they did not use the infrastructure. As I see it, most of the serious space exploration aficionados got their interest more by ideas of exploration and discovery, often despite poor quality coverage of live events (i.e. watching Apollo missions on tiny black and whit TV's), but as is the case in many things we mostly hear the stories of those who are on the extremes; in this case those who love space exploration and those who greatly oppose it, not those who either passively and nonvocally support or oppose it. Those people probably make up the bulk of the public, not just in the USA but everywhere. How do you convince those people to support that space travel is worthwhile? I have no idea. But I guess that there is a case to make that some of those people will be turned off by tacky video stream, and that NASA, and the other space agencies, should try to themselves well at all times, and in all media outlets. Spacex certainly has gotten much support through publicity, and you can see the contrast in support for it versus support for less public outreach oriented companies. Its worth trying a bit harder.

Regarding the slow and choppy nature of NASA TV, I am going to say that now, with less than 4000 people streaming it (according to the number at the bottom), my connection, is still slow, and choppy. But anyway, it is better that they spend their time on building good spaceships, and doing good science; it would have been unfortunate if the coverage were clean and smooth, only to show the massive fireball and explosions. I am happy to see it at all, in colour, even. Who cares if it is poor coverage. Congragulations to NASA and to the Orion teams!

eRe4s3r: What about X-37b? I would say that it is current, and it uses a very similar heatsheild to the Shuttle.

Does anyone have any ideas about the floats that right the craft? Not all were properly deployed, but I imagine that they may not need all....

Well, not the Shuttle ones, and on Orion, not the side walls, here just the large front sheild ablates. Anyway, it was incredible, and it seemed to go off all without any problem. Hopefully, that shall be indicative of things to come.

Hooray! Stable one position, splashdown confirmed.

Well, it reminded me of some old KSP versions... There was trouble watching the stream, but, I imagine that that stems from that fact that so many people were watching, which can not be a bad thing. I am uncertain why it would turn as it appeared to, although I would say that the side mounted camera's perspective seems, well, a little hard to say exactly what is going on from. It is possible (I should re-watch it) that the appearance comes from lens distortion.