Jump to content

Trident Memorial thread.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

NASA selected the disposable probe thing and the darn magellan copycat which were already rejected once.

Now without Trident Neptune will move farther away and we won't see tritons geysers for hundreds of years.

Back to Triton? Proposed Mission Would Return to Neptune's Exotic Largest  Moon « AmericaSpace

Edited by Minmus Taster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have a dying hope that a flagship Neptune orbiter mission might happen.

on another note... would it be possible to aerobrake at Triton? Or to take a gravity assist to help capture around neptune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - yeah, but remember that not too long ago some scientist made a credible claim for having detected organics in the Venusian clouds.  That could have played a part (even if her work has been subsequently criticized).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spaceman.Spiff said:

I still have a dying hope that a flagship Neptune orbiter mission might happen.

on another note... would it be possible to aerobrake at Triton? Or to take a gravity assist to help capture around neptune?

No not around Triton but Neptune seems possible.

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Okay - yeah, but remember that not too long ago some scientist made a credible claim for having detected organics in the Venusian clouds.  That could have played a part (even if her work has been subsequently criticized).

That's probably just a dirty telescope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Okay - yeah, but remember that not too long ago some scientist made a credible claim for having detected organics in the Venusian clouds.  That could have played a part (even if her work has been subsequently criticized).

Yeah and it's also something that could be accomplished within this presidential term. Unlike Trident which would take 13 years because of a snail's pace trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Neptune Odyssey.pdf

Cassini-like orbiter with atmospheric probe, 16-year direct trajectory, operation into the 2060's.

Launched on SLS Block 2 with a Centaur (probably V) in 2033.

I would say it's quite possible.

SLS won't last that long, it's not sustainable.

And Elon will already have starship well into servic...OOOOOOHHHHHHHH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Neptune Odyssey.pdf

Cassini-like orbiter with atmospheric probe, 16-year direct trajectory, operation into the 2060's.

Launched on SLS Block 2 with a Centaur (probably V) in 2033.

I would say it's quite possible.

That would be amazing.

Would a "direct" trajectory include a jupiter assist or would it be truly direct?

 

IMO since the window is coming up at the end of the decade we should prepare several missions. One of my favorites was the Triton Hopper...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Yeah and it's also something that could be accomplished within this presidential term. Unlike Trident which would take 13 years because of a snail's pace trajectory.

I guess they could share a launch too... idk how heavy the probes are supposed to be.

I think the problem with the other two candidates are that they'd both need RTGs, and they'd both need to be one mission and not the other (ie. no shared launch etc). It is somewhat disheartening but even if they did happen we'd wait at least 8 years before the stuff they approved get launched anyway.

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

do you think they're going to share they're discoveries with us?

You think US scientist share the data they get first with others ? Data access limitation is a common thing, they get a right for a year or so to have it to themselves, only later published out in public (unless if they decide to release it early).

We can wait for more powerful rockets to come in, honestly. SLS should have a pretty good C3 graph, SS/SH would need to expend but the faster you insert something the more you need fuel on the trip endpoint anyway.

EDIT : The Neptune Odyssey plan mentions expendable FH with additional stage but the fairing would have to be enlarged.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

SLS won't last that long, it's not sustainable.

And Elon will already have starship well into servic...OOOOOOHHHHHHHH.

Just because SLS isn't reusable doesn't make it non-sustainable. It's also politically rock-solid.

In addition to the Artemis crew launches (maybe 3 every 2 years?), which it is needed for continuing into the 2030s (Starship crew, (or any propulsive landing without backups) is a bad idea until it can be *very* reliable, and any of the other jury-rigged Orion on Falcon Heavy ideas don't really work)

Spoiler
Quote

NASA announced in October that it was starting negotiations with Boeing for a production contract that would cover up to 10 core stages for the SLS, starting with the third SLS rocket. Boeing is already under contract for the first two SLS vehicles and NASA has authorized initial funding for the third SLS in order for it to be ready in time for a human lunar landing mission in 2024.

NASA expects that, with a long-term contract in place, it will be able to bring down the costs of individual SLS vehicles. “If you buy one SLS rocket, the price is really high. If you buy two, the price goes down significantly, and if you buy the three it keeps going down,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said at a Dec. 9 event at the Michoud Assembly Facility here.

Bridenstine said at the event that the agency was seeking such economies of scale in any contract for future SLS vehicles, depending on how many the agency needed for its future exploration plans. “We need to look at the price based on a negotiation between NASA and our prime contractor,” he said, a reference to Boeing. “That negotiation, and how many we buy, ultimately will determine what that final cost will be per rocket.”

 

 

Anyway, to avoid going too off-topic, SLS production that isn't used for Artemis could pretty easily be harnessed for putting probes on very high-energy trajectories, perfect for your planetary science needs. The only problem is that there aren't too many of those missions in the works, and launch windows and the escalation of production are ramping up fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Just because SLS isn't reusable doesn't make it non-sustainable. It's also politically rock-solid.

In addition to the Artemis crew launches (maybe 3 every 2 years?), which it is needed for continuing into the 2030s (Starship crew, (or any propulsive landing without backups) is a bad idea until it can be *very* reliable, and any of the other jury-rigged Orion on Falcon Heavy ideas don't really work)

  Hide contents

 

 

Anyway, to avoid going too off-topic, SLS production that isn't used for Artemis could pretty easily be harnessed for putting probes on very high-energy trajectories, perfect for your planetary science needs. The only problem is that there aren't too many of those missions in the works, and launch windows and the escalation of production are ramping up fast.

The best part of that Odyssey paper... I LOLed at this.

Screen_Shot_2021-06-02_at_6.59.05_PM.png

Edited by Spaceman.Spiff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

SLS production that isn't used for Artemis 

None. The Artemis program can't spare any.

But a starship architecture could send over a hundred tonnes to a Neptune intercept direct with plenty DV left over for a fast transfer, and a hundred tonnes is plenty to brake into orbit with a decent science package even using hypergols.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A millenium-long shame upon NASA.

Let them wake up every morning with this thought in mind.

When we could see something really new and interesting, we now shall get just two more sensational, amusing panoramas of a useless desert.

Like if the previous Venusian and the Martian ones was not enough to enjoy. Buy a trip to Sahara, at last.

NASA! Humanity won't forget that you leaved the humanity without Tritonian geysers forever.

Because the first time when humans will see the hot Tritonian summer, they will probably be not exactly humans.

Shame.

People! Don't be like NASA!

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

A millenium-long shame upon NASA.

Let them wake up every morning with this thought in mind.

When we could see something really new and interesting, we now shall get just two more sensational, amusing panoramas of a useless desert.

Like if the previous Venusian and the Martian ones was not enough to enjoy. Buy a trip to Sahara, at last.

NASA! Humanity won't forget that you leaved the humanity without Tritonian geysers forever.

Because the first time when humans will see the hot Tritonian summer, they will probably be not exactly humans.

Shame.

People! Don't be like NASA!

I'm already over it, there is always another concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/2/2021 at 4:18 PM, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Yeah and it's also something that could be accomplished within this presidential term. Unlike Trident which would take 13 years because of a snail's pace trajectory.

It needs an ion drive, for both getting there and capture.  And it isn't like it will need the full power of the radios and sensors until then, and the RTG will be spitting out the same power no matter what.

On 6/2/2021 at 6:41 PM, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Just because SLS isn't reusable doesn't make it non-sustainable. It's also politically rock-solid.

Shelby isn't running in 2022.  He's the cornerstone in its rock-solid political backing.  And from an economic perspective, a reusable SLS wouldn't be any more sustainable.  Besides, the serious cost-plus gravy train will be over by 2022 and the  Senate will be moving on to Vulcan as its favorite son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

Regardless of if or when a Neptune or Uranus mission even gets planned out any time soon if I ever work at NASA I can say here and now I ain't working on VERITAS.

Edited by Minmus Taster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

Regardless of if or when a Neptune or Uranus mission even gets planned out any time soon if I ever work at NASA I can say here and now I ain't working on VERITAS.

Hey, it isn't VERITAS' fault it got picked. Blame NASA, not VERITAS, which was just as innocently submitted as Trident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Now I'm no science expert so take this with a grain of salt but I feel like the scientific value was way higher with a mission to Neptune and if that's true it's simply ridiculous that NASA didn't pick Trident!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...