NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover

[Eric Mc]

CraigyMc said:

Yep, and ESA refuels the ISS with ~800kg of fuel at a time.

My point was about scale - I don't think anyone has ever tried moving tens of tons of fuel/oxidizer on orbit before, in multiple refuellings to fill up something that sits on orbit for a while.

How does the boil-off work for example?

NASA planned to do this during the Space Shuttle era when they intended to use a modified version of the LOX/LH fueled Centaur upper stage as a booster for interplanetary probes. This would have meant carrying the Centaur into space in a fully fueled state in the cargo bay of the Shuttle - but facility for venting and topping off was also required.

They abandoned this plan, not because they thought that it couldn't be done. In fact, the first Shuttle/Centaur combination was being readied for a mid 1986 launch and was only cancelled when Shuttle missions stopped due to the Challenger accident (January 1986).

As a result of the much more conservative attitude from NASA after the accident, a decision was made to abandon the plan to use Centaur in the Shuttle.

[CraigyMc]

Eric Mc said:

CraigyMc said:

Yep, and ESA refuels the ISS with ~800kg of fuel at a time.

My point was about scale - I don't think anyone has ever tried moving tens of tons of fuel/oxidizer on orbit before, in multiple refuellings to fill up something that sits on orbit for a while.

How does the boil-off work for example?

NASA planned to do this during the Space Shuttle era when they intended to use a modified version of the LOX/LH fueled Centaur upper stage as a booster for interplanetary probes. This would have meant carrying the Centaur into space in a fully fueled state in the cargo bay of the Shuttle - but facility for venting and topping off was also required.

They abandoned this plan, not because they thought that it couldn't be done. In fact, the first Shuttle/Centaur combination was being readied for a mid 1986 launch and was only cancelled when Shuttle missions stopped due to the Challenger accident (January 1986).

As a result of the much more conservative attitude from NASA after the accident, a decision was made to abandon the plan to use Centaur in the Shuttle.

I read about that earlier today - fascinating.

I understand NASA may be actually funding some of the SpaceX on-orbit refuelling R&D.

[Eric Mc]

NASA has sent quite a bit of dosh in the direction of SpaceX.

[Einion Yrth]

Eric Mc said:

NASA has sent quite a bit of dosh in the direction of SpaceX.

To be fair they've had cut-price launch services in return.

[Eric Mc]

To be fair, SpaceX would not have got going without the seed funding put into it by NASA.

The Space Station Supply contract and the Commercial Crew Programme were absolutely essential for getting SpaceX the working capital they needed to be able to plough ahead in all the other areas they are now exploring.

The Commercial Crew Programme was a NASA project (under direction from the US government) to enhance the use of commercial operators in spaceflight.

The desired outcome was to have a more affordable way of conducting space station operations. It seems to have worked.

[Leithen]

Both parties have every reason to be happy.

It will be interesting to see what Bezos adds.

[CraigyMc]

Leithen said:

Both parties have every reason to be happy.

It will be interesting to see what Bezos adds.

Prime.

[MartG]

Dog Star said:

Fundoreen said:

Our current fastest space probe would take 60000 years to get to the nearest star. many times longer than man has any history.

Could you tell us where on this thread anyone has been postulating interstellar travel? What are you wibbling about?

^ This

[Fundoreen]

MartG said:

Dog Star said:

Fundoreen said:

Our current fastest space probe would take 60000 years to get to the nearest star. many times longer than man has any history.

Could you tell us where on this thread anyone has been postulating interstellar travel? What are you wibbling about?

^ This

I get your point but its the pretence that going to mars has any real value. We have been doing the same thing for 40 odd years.
Nice work if you can get it.

[CraigyMc]

MartG said:

^ This

The maths is wrong anyway. Parker solar probe would get to proxima centauri in around 6300 years if it was sent out there at its maximum speed.

Obviously anything that far away and you're going to do interesting stuff with regards to assists -- propulsion won't be chemical, it'll be ion or nuclear, or similar.

It'd be interesting to build something to go out a lot faster than voyager-1 though.

[CraigyMc]

Fundoreen said:

MartG said:

Dog Star said:

Fundoreen said:

Our current fastest space probe would take 60000 years to get to the nearest star. many times longer than man has any history.

Could you tell us where on this thread anyone has been postulating interstellar travel? What are you wibbling about?

^ This

I get your point but its the pretence that going to mars has any real value. We have been doing the same thing for 40 odd years.
Nice work if you can get it.

Straight question: what are you doing on the Science board?

[Fundoreen]

CraigyMc said:

Straight question: what are you doing on the Science board?

Well its ultimately a car forum and these space escapades are paid for by the public. So im entitled to an
opinion on how my money is spent.

[Eric Mc]

Do you live in the US?

[CraigyMc]

Fundoreen said:

Well its ultimately a car forum and these space escapades are paid for by the public.

Oh, sure your opinion is yours and just as valid as mine. I was just trying to understand why you'd jump on a thread about space exploration to talk down space exploration.

Fundoreen said:

So im entitled to an opinion on how my money is spent.

SpaceX is a private company so unless you're making some sort of weirdly global point about all of the resources belonging to all humanity, Elon's not spending your dough to go to Mars.

Unless you pay American taxes, NASA isn't either.
*shrug*

[Einion Yrth]

Eric Mc said:

To be fair, SpaceX would not have got going without the seed funding put into it by NASA.

I believe Falcon 1 was funded out of Musk's pocket. Admittedly U.S. Gov. funding followed close behind.

[eharding]

Fundoreen said:

Instead of all the stupid tv shows that show someone running a lot to prepare for their space mission they should see if people
can live on the moon for a year first. The least disturbed can then go on the mars mission. I would expect all of them to drop out
to run home to mummy.
They tried some sealed self sufficent bubble on earth and they all kept nipping outside for a fag or had resources added from outside.

Valeri Polyakov served a continuous 14 month stint on the Mir space station. I don't think he kept nipping outside for a fag, but being Russian he may well of done. History doesn't relate as to whether he ran home to his mother after returning, but I suspect some recuperation was in order before he went running anywhere.

Honestly though, you do come out with some seriously gormless shyte on a regular basis in these Science threads.

[CraigyMc]

Einion Yrth said:

Eric Mc said:

To be fair, SpaceX would not have got going without the seed funding put into it by NASA.

I believe Falcon 1 was funded out of Musk's pocket. Admittedly U.S. Gov. funding followed close behind.

The first 3 were. He's on record saying that if the last one hadn't worked, they'd have folded; they were totally out of funds.

[Blackpuddin]

CraigyMc said:

Fundoreen said:

Well its ultimately a car forum and these space escapades are paid for by the public.

Oh, sure your opinion is yours and just as valid as mine. I was just trying to understand why you'd jump on a thread about space exploration to talk down space exploration.

His posting style might grate for some but I think he's quite entitled to make the comments he's making. The thread title does not exclude those who have a different view. I would have thought that those who profess to be interested in science should be open to alternative views. Entertaining other views should be a thought-provoking exercise and not an opportunity to take potshots at people just because their views don't tally with those held by others.
Plus they are perfectly valid points he's raising. I've asked on here what it's all about, what's driving this apparent need for humans (as opposed to machines or telescopes) to explore space and the answers have essentially amounted to 'because it's there'. If folk think that's enough, fine. I personally don't and I suspect Fundoreen doesn't either.

[Einion Yrth]

Blackpuddin said:

CraigyMc said:

Fundoreen said:

Well its ultimately a car forum and these space escapades are paid for by the public.

Oh, sure your opinion is yours and just as valid as mine. I was just trying to understand why you'd jump on a thread about space exploration to talk down space exploration.

His posting style might grate for some but I think he's quite entitled to make the comments he's making. The thread title does not exclude those who have a different view. I would have thought that those who profess to be interested in science should be open to alternative views. Entertaining other views should be a thought-provoking exercise and not an opportunity to take potshots at people just because their views don't tally with those held by others.
Plus they are perfectly valid points he's raising. I've asked on here what it's all about, what's driving this apparent need for humans (as opposed to machines or telescopes) to explore space and the answers have essentially amounted to 'because it's there'. If folk think that's enough, fine. I personally don't and I suspect Fundoreen doesn't either.

How about trying to become a multi-planet species BEFORE the inevitable civilisation ending asteroid/comet strike. Might not work, but it's got to be worth the relatively small investment surely? (Bearing in mind the proportion of global assets spent on killing each other, or trying to deter same).

[CraigyMc]

Blackpuddin said:

CraigyMc said:

Fundoreen said:

Well its ultimately a car forum and these space escapades are paid for by the public.

Oh, sure your opinion is yours and just as valid as mine. I was just trying to understand why you'd jump on a thread about space exploration to talk down space exploration.

His posting style might grate for some but I think he's quite entitled to make the comments he's making. The thread title does not exclude those who have a different view. I would have thought that those who profess to be interested in science should be open to alternative views. Entertaining other views should be a thought-provoking exercise and not an opportunity to take potshots at people just because their views don't tally with those held by others.
Plus they are perfectly valid points he's raising. I've asked on here what it's all about, what's driving this apparent need for humans (as opposed to machines or telescopes) to explore space and the answers have essentially amounted to 'because it's there'. If folk think that's enough, fine. I personally don't and I suspect Fundoreen doesn't either.

So, we agree. Cool.