Cassini vs Curiosity - which is worth saving?

[Albert VDS]

@Simon Ross:

Go to this link for a list of experiments on the ISS: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

There's tons of experiments done in the ISS which benefit future manned space exploration.

It seems to me that you haven't even looked into what they actually do.

[Drunkrobot]

The original question concerned a hypothetical situation were NASA had to choose between two of it's flagship robotic missions. For the question's sake, assume all other programs are safe from cuts. If you wish to discuss the ISS and it's role in space exploration, both manned and unmanned, then please find another thread to discuss it on.

[Kryten]

Even if we pretended the ISS could be cut, it wouldn't affect this situation. There's no such thing as a lump 'NASA budget', congress assigns different ones for the different divisions.

[MBobrik]

if you are forced to make choices like that, then you are already screwed and you will save neither.

[Simon Ross]

@Simon Ross:

Go to this link for a list of experiments on the ISS: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

There's tons of experiments done in the ISS which benefit future manned space exploration.

It seems to me that you haven't even looked into what they actually do.

With respect, I take a great interest in what the ISS is used for. Yes, it's an impressively long list of experiments. However.... After 15 years and 100 billion dollars could you please point me to the experiments where

1) It has a direct impact on our ability to explore space safer, cheaper and faster

2) It has a direct impact on our ability to manufacture materials / processes that can be replicated or up scaled to economical levels.

3) It has a direct impact on our ability to better understand our planet

Again, I reiterate that the ISS has been a massive missed opportunity. The chance has been there for 15 years to actually solve many of the engineering issues that need to be addressed if we are ever to get out of LEO again. This has never happened and frankly now it never will.

[minerman30]

I'd say Cassini, but not just because I've always been a big fan of it. I feel, in general, more people would care if Curiosity had to end it's mission early. [WISHFUL] Maybe seeing something get cancelled due to petty squabbling in congress might open some people's eyes and force congress to reevaluate the decision[/WISHFUL].

This is actually a good idea. The plan goes as following:

NASA cancels Curiosity due to lack of funding

Public realizes how much we're underfunding NASA

Public elects officials who will fund NASA more

NASA continues all missions and launches new ones

[Mmmmyum]

Heck we already pulled out of the anti ballistic missile treaty and militarization of space has already started with the 3 world military powers working on ASAT weapons.

Shhh it's just to get rid of rogue space "debris"!

[ZetaX]

With respect, I take a great interest in what the ISS is used for. Yes, it's an impressively long list of experiments. However.... After 15 years and 100 billion dollars could you please point me to the experiments where

1) It has a direct impact on our ability to explore space safer, cheaper and faster

2) It has a direct impact on our ability to manufacture materials / processes that can be replicated or up scaled to economical levels.

3) It has a direct impact on our ability to better understand our planet

Well, if you arbitrarily restrict usage to those (and I haven't even checked how much of those would be satisfied by the ISS), then you probably want to explain how Cassini is providing any of those.

[Simon Ross]

Well, if you arbitrarily restrict usage to those (and I haven't even checked how much of those would be satisfied by the ISS), then you probably want to explain how Cassini is providing any of those.

Quite simply because trying to compare exploration missions like Cassini to the ISS is like trying to compare apples with oranges. In addition, missions such as Cassini, Curiosity etc.. are funded at a tiny fraction of the assembly and ongoing operational costs of the ISS.

It may seem that I am anti ISS, but lets take a cold, hard rational look at what has been achieved by it and ask the fundamental question - Has all the time, effort and money invested in the ISS enabled us to enhance our capability to reach Leo and beyond ? The cold, hard answer is NO ! 40 years ago, Nasa was an organisation that was capable of launching a manned, heavy lift space craft to another planet, now that same organisation cannot launch a single man to orbit with it's own hardware ! Perhaps it is my warped perspective living on the other side of the Atlantic, but it seems to me fundamentally wrong that the richest, most powerful nation in the world can have a massive space station sitting in orbit, yet no longer has the capacity to reach it on it's own.

100 billion dollars, think about that figure, mull it over in your mind, it's a huge amount of money. What else could have been done with that kind of funding ? What opportunities have been missed ?

Here is just one...

Develop a true heavy lift vehicle. OK. so you want to place a large space station in orbit, unfortunately all you have is the limited payload the shuttle offers so it has to go up in 25 ton sections increasing both the cost, technical complexity and the number of interfaces required on the station. So someone has the bright idea to revisit some of the post Apollo heavy lift proposals to see if there is a better way to do it (this of course never happened, Nasa were still in denial that their elegant, high tech spaceplane was the single worst economic way of getting large amounts of material into orbit ever built)

If they had done, they would have found many different proposals, but many of them shared the basic concept of KISS, separate out heavy lift duties and keep the design as simple as possible.. One typical proposal was Sea Dragon, a monster 2 stage launch vehicle that took the concept of the Big Dumb Booster and evolved it into a Very Big, Very Dumb Booster. Basically built in a standard shipyard out of standard 8mm steel using bog standard shipyard construction methods it's eventually towed out to sea, filled with hydrogen and oxygen and someone lights the blue touch paper. Whilst Sea Dragon was a beast of a launcher, it was also costed (and verified by independent bodies) as requiring a fraction of the development and construction cost of the existing Saturn 5 launch system. It's construction was simple, it's engines were simple, it contained just about enough technology to put itself into the orbit you wanted and most important of all, it wasn't man rated, it never would be.

So lets go a little further down this road. From 1964 until 1973, a total of $6.5 billion ($46.77 billion present day) was appropriated for the Saturn V development and construction of the flight articles. Estimates for the development and first 5 flight articles of Sea Dragon were thought to be in the region of 25% to 35% of the Saturn V programme costs. Well, we all know that major construction projects over run, so lets pick a more realistic figure of 50% of the Saturn V cost. so what do we get for our $23 billion

Well the first thing you get is a launch system that can place 550 tons into Leo. Think about that figure, that's an entire ISS sized space station placed into orbit on a single launch ! Better still it wouldn't be the complex, modular, cramped (and very expensive) station we have today, but would be much more along the lines of a giant sized Skylab, much more interior space, far fewer interfaces to go wrong and best of all, a fraction of the cost of trying to launch the ISS one piece at a time. Quite simply, the cost savings on the station alone would have more then paid for any possible over run on the Sea Dragon development.

And now comes the even better bit, for our $23 billion we still have 4 flight articles remaining capable of putting 2200 tons total into LEO. That's a moon base, or a manned Mars capable landing system or simply more giant Skylab type modules to our already large station. Hell, why settle for 3 people up there when we can comfortably house 30 ?

A flight of fancy ? Not really, the Sea Dragon concept and technology was well understood even in the 60's, you really don't need a lot of technology to get large masses into orbit, you simply need a lot of grunt

And this is what basically frustrates me with the ISS, we could have done it differently, at lower overall cost, built a better station and developed a true heavy lift capability that would have effectively opened the solar system up for manned flight. But we didn't, did we.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Simon Ross

[ZetaX]

I don't deny that a lot of money was used rather ineffectively here, and wonder how much will change for the next generation of space stations by the onsetting commercial rockets. The shuttle still was useful in some ways I think, but this is not a well founded oppinion and might easily be wrong. Did you also consider the costs of sending new astronauts up regularily, and that more of them also need mroe supplies and replacements per time¿ Because that seems to be one of the expensive parts, too, and not really viable by just having tons of raw rocket power.

I'm sorry that don't have the time for a more elaborate answer right now (as I would need to read up on the costs of all those things to make a good point in any direction), but I agree with the often-made statement that sending humans too far away (say, mars) having not much advantage over robots, rendering too much thrust useless again.

[Simon Ross]

The history of the Shuttle is certainly complex. None of the original proponents ever envisioned it to be a one size fits all vehicle, just a cheap way of getting a crew into orbit with a small payload (< 5 tons) for scientific study.

Unfortunately, the only way Shuttle would get built eventually was to meet the USAF requirement for a vehicle capable of orbiting their proposed 'Big Bird' satellite which required a 25 ton payload capacity and also they added a massive increase to the cross range capacity resulting in the heavy delta wings of the final design.

There isn't actually anything wrong with the idea of a reusable space shuttle, you just need to design it for the purpose it is best for, get a crew to orbit safely, get it back safely and enable a quick turnaround. which doesn't require weeks of refurbishment to the craft.

What NASA actually did with the Shuttle is remarkable, they met all the requirements forced upon them at the time, and is still to this day one of the most remarkable engineering achievements ever built.

The basic problem is it is just about the worst way of lifting materials into orbit ever built.

So fast forward to 2013, Constellation is dead, we now have the SLS, again NASA forced by budget restrictions to combine the functions of a HLV into the functions of a man rated vehicle.

We don't really seem to have learnt a damn thing:-(

[Skyler4856]

While I agree that robotic exploration is far more effective when it comes to scientific research, there exists a certain inspiration with manned missions. Inspiration that eventually leads to more funding and more exploration. Don't get me wrong I too am struck with awe when confronted with curiosity or new horizons, but the only possible way that man will ever conquer space is with manned missions.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Skyler4856

[SFJackBauer]

With respect, I take a great interest in what the ISS is used for. Yes, it's an impressively long list of experiments. However.... After 15 years and 100 billion dollars could you please point me to the experiments where

1) It has a direct impact on our ability to explore space safer, cheaper and faster

2) It has a direct impact on our ability to manufacture materials / processes that can be replicated or up scaled to economical levels.

3) It has a direct impact on our ability to better understand our planet

Again, I reiterate that the ISS has been a massive missed opportunity. The chance has been there for 15 years to actually solve many of the engineering issues that need to be addressed if we are ever to get out of LEO again. This has never happened and frankly now it never will.

Let me point you to a list of experiments that satisfy your requirements:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

Yes, I am linking to that same list, because thats exactly what they are...

[Cesrate]

I hope NASA won't have to do this choice. But if NASA really do it, there will likely be other communities interested in the chosen one.

"JPL, have a look at the stone I found!"

…

"JPL?"

…

"JPL where are you?"

…

…

"Hello, Curiosity, this is Jiuquan."

…

"All right, Jiuquan, have a look at the stone I found…"

[ZedNova]

Time to invest in SpaceX.

[The Jedi Master]

Curiosity, if I have to choose. As much as it has helped science, Cassini is basically a rock with a camera drifting through space. Curiosity is more direct.

The fact of the matter is that NASA is dying. Have you ever wondered why the President is encouraging private companies to get more ambitious? Now you know. As much as I would like NASA to continue, and think it would be best if they just stopped spending so much money on guns and bombs, I do not see how the American space program can be saved at this point.

And, as much as everybody hates to admit it, it might be better if we focused on what's going on here on Earth for a while. When it comes down to it, it's better to spend a billion dollars on health care than it is to spend the same amount of money on launching a rocket into LEO.

I just hope they don't cancel the ISS. People LIVE on that thing.

[Bacterius]

I just hope they don't cancel the ISS. People LIVE on that thing.

I, uh.. I trust they will bring the crew down before deorbiting the station.. in any case I'm pretty sure they will arrange evacuation of the relevant crew members if they stop supporting the ISS, surely they won't strand them up there?

Edited December 7, 2013 by Bacterius

[The Jedi Master]

I, uh.. I trust they will bring the crew down before deorbiting the station.. in any case I'm pretty sure they will arrange evacuation of the relevant crew members if they stop supporting the ISS, surely they won't strand them up there?

1. "Whoops, can't afford that evacuation, good luck!"

2. Where do they go afterward?

[Simon Ross]

Let me point you to a list of experiments that satisfy your requirements:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

Yes, I am linking to that same list, because thats exactly what they are...

And as I have already agreed, an impressively long list of scientific experiments. Really doesn't answer the basic issue, what's the point of all of it if you haven't really worked out the basics of getting crew and materials to LEO and beyond in any form of economical way ?

I'm not anti ISS, I am simply very anti how it was actually realised. 100 billion dollars could have done a hell of a lot more in terms of developing launch capability, true HLV's, advanced nuclear engines etc... Instead it has been sucked up by the ISS and we are no more capable in terms of launch capability then we were 40 years ago ( in reality, we are actually less capable now).

[SFJackBauer]

And as I have already agreed, an impressively long list of scientific experiments. Really doesn't answer the basic issue, what's the point of all of it if you haven't really worked out the basics of getting crew and materials to LEO and beyond in any form of economical way ?

I'm not anti ISS, I am simply very anti how it was actually realised. 100 billion dollars could have done a hell of a lot more in terms of developing launch capability, true HLV's, advanced nuclear engines etc... Instead it has been sucked up by the ISS and we are no more capable in terms of launch capability then we were 40 years ago ( in reality, we are actually less capable now).

I see your stance but I don't buy the argument that the ISS sucked money from other things - it was the lack of political interest that halted heavy-lifting development. Same happened in USSR. Having some sort of a semi-permanent orbital space station would be a necessary step into exploring space anyway, so you couldn't simply switch one thing for another. Unless you think we should have launched a monolithic, 500t moonbase at once directly into moon surface and figure out "on the way" how to operate it and live inside it.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I think that further budgetary cuts to space exploration are awful and hope it doesn't come to this. However if I had to choose one to save it would be curiosity. As it is a lot better known the public pay more attention to it.

Also I think exploring the most similar and closest planet to earth should continue to be a high priority for along time to come.

[Vaebn]

Cassini! It takes YEARS to reach Saturn. Cassini launched in 1997, and didn't reach Saturn until 2004...

In comparison, Mars is next door.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Vaebn

[Unimatrix1]

My view is save curiosity as it has a potentially longer life span, Cassini bless it's silicon sole will go to silicon heaven it has been battered by the radiation from the belts around Saturn, it requires fuel to maintain it's orbit (and requires a little to deorbit to avoid contamination) so it may continue to conduct science and is older of the two. However curiosity is younger, it has the atmosphere to provide protection from the full triggers of space and the potential to provide us with the science to send man to mars with the aim to colonize, that is my view in any case (But I'd rather save both)

[SolarLiner]

Cassini ! Because of that:

[Links contains the full 9000x3500, 5 Mb image]

[OrianCEV]

And there is also issue of cancelling the ISS support to save SLS...

I think the SLS would be more affordable to loose,considering it is not even built yet.Also,the ISS is a large hub to expiriment systems for future interplanetary manned and unmanned missions, So it is needed more desperately.

P.S. I pick to not cancel the ISS