Cassini vs Curiosity - which is worth saving?

[OrianCEV]

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.

I agree,especially considering that curiosity gives us the information about if mars was once inhabited with any type of living creature, and how we could make it habitable.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Curiosity. Yes, a mission to Saturn would be difficult without RTGs, but a rover mission on Mars would be more useful to us. Having a rover on Mars means a step closer to a man (woman?) on mars.

I love Cassini though. Hard choice to make.

[Halsfury]

It shouldn't really be a choice though, since both of these represent the cutting edge of technology and the legacy of Apollo, without which curiosity couldn't have even got off the ground, NASA has the best ability to navigate in deep space of any agency currently and none are up to the challenge of filling those shoes.

Really what this breaks down to is that the USA is frankly not interested in space exploration and would prefer to rest on her laurels since the war hawks in congress and the senate only care about rockets with ordinance as payloads.

It seems to me that in America the old men in government are so puerile that they prefer B-2's to the noble efforts of spacefarers, as if bombs will help them when their supremacy is torn away by China along with the quixotic veneer that they are the "good guys", like some idiotic western.

[Simon Ross]

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

I think at that stage you might as well shut the manned mission section of NASA down and just give the budget directly to the Russians !

There simply wont be any future interplanetary manned missions. Personally I think the SLS is a bloody terrible idea, but it does happen to be the only chance NASA has to stay in the manned space flight business.

[Tommygun]

I think at that stage you might as well shut the manned mission section of NASA down and just give the budget directly to the Russians !

There simply wont be any future interplanetary manned missions. Personally I think the SLS is a bloody terrible idea, but it does happen to be the only chance NASA has to stay in the manned space flight business.

I think they could get by with a manned rated Delta or Atlas.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tommygun

[Simon Ross]

I think they could get by with a manned rated Delta or Atlas.

Well certainly both the Delta 4 and Atlas 5 are currently being evaluated as possible manned boosters, it would certainly make a lot more sense then trying to man rate the SLS. Trying to man rate a HLV is just plain daft, you end up with the same technology roadblock that killed off the Saturn 5.

[Tommygun]

Yes and the shuttle for that matter.

Just too expensive for launching humans when lighter vehicles can do it.

[Fractal_UK]

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.

I think this is a commonly held perspective but a very worrying one, there will always be something else that we can spend money on than gives more immediate and more short term benefits than space travel and, more generally speaking, scientific research in general.

Ultimately though, the more efficient path in the long term is the one that produces more scientific and technological discoveries, because that is the way we find novel new ways to improve people's lives, all the time scientists and engineers are taking front-line research done for science's sake and finding practical applications for them. Space travel is no different, when we try to explore beyond what we have already done, we give ourselves a complicated engineering problem to solve and the solutions that we find are inevitability applicable to wider society.

There is a worrying trend at the moment toward policy that is immediately profitable, its not just in space or even just confined to research in general, we see it in infrastructure as well. In the longer term, I fear we'll pay for this approach.

[Kryten]

Just too expensive for launching humans when lighter vehicles can do it.

Except in this case they can't do it. Fully-fueled Orion is too heavy even for Delta IVH. Your other option is what constellation tried, producing an entirely new LV-but does anyone seriously except crew-rating a launcher that uses components that are already crew-rated to cost less than producing a completely new HLV?

[Simon Ross]

Except in this case they can't do it. Fully-fueled Orion is too heavy even for Delta IVH. Your other option is what constellation tried, producing an entirely new LV-but does anyone seriously except crew-rating a launcher that uses components that are already crew-rated to cost less than producing a completely new HLV?

Sounds like a good reason to pull the plug on Orion and go with the commercial crew vehicles under development. Quite frankly, Orion simply has no real purpose any more. It was specified as part of a programme that has been cancelled and for missions that no longer exist.

This is the whole problem with man rating SLS to carry Orion, the moment you do the cost goes through the roof, the performance and payload fraction go through the floor. It's almost as if every lesson we have learnt from both the Saturn 5 and Shuttle programmes have been totally forgotten.

[Kryten]

None of the crew vehicles in development are designed to go anywhere except LEO. None of them even have solar panels.

Why do you think 'man-rating' SLS is going to do anything to performance or payload fraction?

[Simon Ross]

None of the crew vehicles in development are designed to go anywhere except LEO. None of them even have solar panels.

Why do you think 'man-rating' SLS is going to do anything to performance or payload fraction?

In layman terms, a man rated booster has to match some very stringent NASA requirements in terms of safety, escape systems, vibration tolerance and max G imposed during the ascent and return phases of a flight. Basically inert cargo doesn't really care if a booster subjects it to 10g during an ascent, human beings on the other hand tend to black out or die.

The two key areas are safety and max G, any man rated system now requires a system to physically get the crew away from an in flight incident and to keep any g forces during ascent below 3g . To do this requires a lot of extra hardware (weight) and the ability to either de tune the engines used or run them below their optimum thrust profile.

Basically, man rate a booster that is designed to lift cargo to orbit is pretty much like making Usain Bolt run 100 metres with one arm tied behind his back, yes he can still do it, but trust me, he isn't going to get close to running it competitively.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Simon Ross

[UltraVires]

Totally Agree with Fractal... There will always be someone who says that the Space Program is too expensive, or takes away from "other" priorities. The truth is somewhat different. In the late 70's Chase Financial was commissioned to do a cost/benefit analysis of the Apollo Program, they found that for every $1.00 spent on the Apollo Program, $12.00 were generated in the wider American economy, and that completely leaves out the "spin off" technologies developed at the same time. A 12 to 1 Return on Investment is better than anything you'll get on Wall Street, or from a Bank...

[SFJackBauer]

Totally Agree with Fractal... There will always be someone who says that the Space Program is too expensive, or takes away from "other" priorities. The truth is somewhat different. In the late 70's Chase Financial was commissioned to do a cost/benefit analysis of the Apollo Program, they found that for every $1.00 spent on the Apollo Program, $12.00 were generated in the wider American economy, and that completely leaves out the "spin off" technologies developed at the same time. A 12 to 1 Return on Investment is better than anything you'll get on Wall Street, or from a Bank...

It can benefit the economy, but does it brings benefits directly to the pocket of the one who invested? Even though I am a capitalist, I think this lack of grand vision is one of capitalism problems. I hope that people with money AND vision, like Elon Musk (and shall I say Bill Gates?), arrive to change the landscape.

I think like Stephen Hawking - the better we learn how to get our eggs of this only one basket, the better. Who knows if tomorrow someone will detect an incoming asteroid.

In layman terms, a man rated booster has to match some very stringent NASA requirements in terms of safety, escape systems, vibration tolerance and max G imposed during the ascent and return phases of a flight. Basically inert cargo doesn't really care if a booster subjects it to 10g during an ascent, human beings on the other hand tend to black out or die.

The two key areas are safety and max G, any man rated system now requires a system to physically get the crew away from an in flight incident and to keep any g forces during ascent below 3g . To do this requires a lot of extra hardware (weight) and the ability to either de tune the engines used or run them below their optimum thrust profile.

Basically, man rate a booster that is designed to lift cargo to orbit is pretty much like making Usain Bolt run 100 metres with one arm tied behind his back, yes he can still do it, but trust me, he isn't going to get close to running it competitively.

Okay, there is a penalty, but is the penalty significant? Engine throttling (or G-throttling) is not easy, but not that hard either - and is needed also with non-human payloads. Please name a satellite launcher which hits 10g during ascent.

Same with safety - a booster that does not explode, and can handle engine failures is always a good thing. See how SpaceX is working tirelessly to maintain a high level of reliability - this is a necessity in the competing landscape of launch services.

[Simon Ross]

It can benefit the economy, but does it brings benefits directly to the pocket of the one who invested? Even though I am a capitalist, I think this lack of grand vision is one of capitalism problems. I hope that people with money AND vision, like Elon Musk (and shall I say Bill Gates?), arrive to change the landscape.

I think like Stephen Hawking - the better we learn how to get our eggs of this only one basket, the better. Who knows if tomorrow someone will detect an incoming asteroid.

Okay, there is a penalty, but is the penalty significant? Engine throttling (or G-throttling) is not easy, but not that hard either - and is needed also with non-human payloads. Please name a satellite launcher which hits 10g during ascent.

Same with safety - a booster that does not explode, and can handle engine failures is always a good thing. See how SpaceX is working tirelessly to maintain a high level of reliability - this is a necessity in the competing landscape of launch services.

A very simple answer, Saturn 5, do you see any of those still in use ?

The last time we tried to combine a heavy lift capability with a crew carrying capability.

It managed to do the mission it was built for magnificently, land men on the Moon, but as a simple way of getting materials into LEO it was too expensive, too complex.

Here on Earth, if we want to transport people we use a family car, if we want to transport freight, we use a truck.

If you want to convert a HLV into a family car, simply man rate it, but the performance costs are horrendous

[UltraVires]

A very simple answer, Saturn 5, do you see any of those still in use ?

The last time we tried to combine a heavy lift capability with a crew carrying capability.

It managed to do the mission it was built for magnificently, land men on the Moon, but as a simple way of getting materials into LEO it was too expensive, too complex.

Here on Earth, if we want to transport people we use a family car, if we want to transport freight, we use a truck.

If you want to convert a HLV into a family car, simply man rate it, but the performance costs are horrendous

Your quite right about the cost of Man-Rating launchers, which is why the Constellation program originally had 2 launch boosters, the Man-Rated Ares 1 to lift Orion, and Ares V(5) for cargo. Unfortunately, NASA does not have the money to develop both.

I give NASA a lot of credit, they realize that they will never get the kind of funding or public support they had for Apollo ever again. So to deal with that, and keep the space program alive, they've had to go for a much slower, and longer term exploration, using scientific knowledge (and possible commercial opportunities) to keep interest in space travel going.

The loss of the Shuttle Program is a blessing in disguise, I know there are a lot of people who loved the Shuttles, I did too, and they did what they were made to brilliantly. But the truth is, they were only ever glorified Space Trucks, made to haul people and cargo into orbit.

Orion is a real spacecraft, and it could be mated with any kind of service module, the current one for use in the Earth-Moon system, or an NTR module (which has yet to be built, but is in development) for real interplanetary journeys. Plus, remember that Orion Capsule is only the part of the ship intended to bring people back to earth... not the whole ship. Orion could be used as a "Descent Pod" for years to come, while "real" spacecraft are built in orbit. The Shuttles made that possible, proving that you could build things in space (ISS).

Honestly, I feel like some Spanish person in 1491, standing by the docks, watching Columbus' ships get built... The next 20 years, are going to be a great time for Space!

Edited December 8, 2013 by UltraVires

[Kryten]

A very simple answer, Saturn 5, do you see any of those still in use ?

Do you see anything else of comparable size, crew-rated or not? Saturn V was cancelled because there were no missions anyone was willing to fund for a rocket that size, simple as that. There's no point having a 100-ton launcher if the only things that anyone actually wants sent up are ten-ton station ferries and six-ton comsats. That would be true regardless of 'man-rating'.

[Simon Ross]

Do you see anything else of comparable size, crew-rated or not? Saturn V was cancelled because there were no missions anyone was willing to fund for a rocket that size, simple as that. There's no point having a 100-ton launcher if the only things that anyone actually wants sent up are ten-ton station ferries and six-ton comsats. That would be true regardless of 'man-rating'.

And the missions for SLS are ? At the moment, actually none, and trust me, I say that with no satisfaction whatsoever :-(

Edited December 9, 2013 by Simon Ross

[Kryten]

Crewed NEO visits and ultimately crewed Mars missions. You know, the ones specified by congress.

[Simon Ross]

Crewed NEO visits and ultimately crewed Mars missions. You know, the ones specified by congress.

Sorry, but with SLS, your never going to see a crewed Mars mission. It's not Apollo on steroids it's simply Apollo. This is the basic problem with the whole concept, Constellation made sense as it separated out the crew lift function from the HLV function, I might not have agreed with the hardware approach they were going to use, but in terms of getting the most bangs for bucks it was certainly the right way of moving forward.

SLS takes us right back to Apollo, a system designed to do a number of things, but none of them very well. Yep, you can get back to the moon with it, but it's just another flags and footprints mission, no long stay support capability, no real mission goals.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Simon Ross

[Psycix]

Forget the SLS.

Just wait for the Falcons to become reusable and change the face of the launch industry forever.

[LtHeckard]

We've sent enough things to Mars, I think we should keep Cassini.

[SFJackBauer]

Sorry, but with SLS, your never going to see a crewed Mars mission. It's not Apollo on steroids it's simply Apollo. This is the basic problem with the whole concept, Constellation made sense as it separated out the crew lift function from the HLV function, I might not have agreed with the hardware approach they were going to use, but in terms of getting the most bangs for bucks it was certainly the right way of moving forward.

SLS takes us right back to Apollo, a system to do one thing, and one thing only. Yep, you can get back to the moon with it, but it's just another flags and footprints mission, no long stay support capability, no real mission goals.

The Mars mission is at the end of the SLS roadmap - its very conceptual, and I'm not saying it will work because predicting anything from NASA beyond the 4-year political cycle is a challenge. But it would require several launches and on-orbit assembly.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/sls-exploration-roadmap-pointing-dual-mars-approach/

I don't get it how it could not be done provided that the funding is there - lifters are lifters at the end of the day. If its the most cost-effective choice, well thats another discussion.

[Simon Ross]

The Mars mission is at the end of the SLS roadmap - its very conceptual, and I'm not saying it will work because predicting anything from NASA beyond the 4-year political cycle is a challenge. But it would require several launches and on-orbit assembly.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/sls-exploration-roadmap-pointing-dual-mars-approach/

I don't get it how it could not be done provided that the funding is there - lifters are lifters at the end of the day. If its the most cost-effective choice, well thats another discussion.

Unforunatly every mission for SLS is conceptual, there is not a single mission for the system that has actual funding !

Trust me, this is not a dig at you, just a total frustration as to how NASA is funded at the moment.

[Kryten]

Unforunatly every mission for SLS is conceptual, there is not a single mission for the system that has actual funding !

EM-1 and EM-2 do. The rest are too far in advance for funding allocations right now to be meaningful.