|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:45:27 +0200 (CEST), "Non scrivetemi"
wrote: The Hayabusa astroid sample collecting mission cost something like $168 million. The solar sail spacecraft being sent to Venus and touring the solar system cost around $16 million. I'm pretty sure that the Hayabusa mission would've cost something on the order of $2 billion had NASA or ESA asked U.S. or European companies to build it. Why? The US already had two unmanned sample return missions in this past decade... Genesis (solar wind) and Stardust (comet), both relatively low-cost Discovery-class mission. Both were in the $200-250 million cost range, Stardust Hayabusa isn't much different. Brian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Jun 20, 9:41*am, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:45:27 +0200 (CEST), "Non scrivetemi" wrote: The Hayabusa astroid sample collecting mission cost something like $168 million. The solar sail spacecraft being sent to Venus and touring the solar system cost around $16 million. I'm pretty sure that the Hayabusa mission would've cost something on the order of $2 billion had NASA or ESA asked U.S. or European companies to build it. Why? The US already had two unmanned sample return missions in this past decade... Genesis (solar wind) and Stardust (comet), both relatively low-cost Discovery-class mission. Both were in the $200-250 million cost range, Stardust *Hayabusa isn't much different. Brian There's no possible comparison, as the Hayabusa was at least ten fold more complex. ~ BG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote: Why? The US already had two unmanned sample return missions in this past decade... Genesis (solar wind) and Stardust (comet), both relatively low-cost Discovery-class mission. Both were in the $200-250 million cost range, Stardust *Hayabusa isn't much different. There's no possible comparison, as the Hayabusa was at least ten fold more complex. Nonsense. Hayabusa was a combination of NASA's NEAR Shoemaker, Stardust and Deep Space 1 missions. At most, this would seem to add up to three times more complex. But of course, it actually isn't because, for example, launch and return are no more complex for Hayabusa than they were for Stardust, DS1 had already proven ion propulsion was viable over long durations, and setting down on the asteroid was no more complex than it was for NEAR (in fact, probably less, since Hayabusa was actually designed to do that.) Brian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On 6/20/2010 8:41 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
Why? The US already had two unmanned sample return missions in this past decade... Genesis (solar wind) and Stardust (comet), both relatively low-cost Discovery-class mission. Both were in the $200-250 million cost range, Stardust Hayabusa isn't much different. What's interesting is that Hayabusa means they are up to the same level as NASA in this regard. Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Jun 20, 12:43*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote: Why? The US already had two unmanned sample return missions in this past decade... Genesis (solar wind) and Stardust (comet), both relatively low-cost Discovery-class mission. Both were in the $200-250 million cost range, Stardust Hayabusa isn't much different. There's no possible comparison, as the Hayabusa was at least ten fold more complex. Nonsense. Hayabusa was a combination of NASA's NEAR Shoemaker, Stardust and Deep Space 1 missions. At most, this would seem to add up to three times more complex. But of course, it actually isn't because, for example, launch and return are no more complex for Hayabusa than they were for Stardust, DS1 had already proven ion propulsion was viable over long durations, and setting down on the asteroid was no more complex than it was for NEAR (in fact, probably less, since Hayabusa was actually designed to do that.) Brian Your belittlement and discrediting of others is noted. Meanwhile, India can perform a NASA trick for roughly one cent on the dollar, and Japan for roughly ten cents. Of course India cheats by not paying 1% as much for hardly anything, and Japan is just a whole lot smarter than most. Must be because they also don't know how to really spend their public loot the way we do, or how to waste nearly as much time. Of course, neither of them have a mutually perpetrated cold-war to keep perking, cloaked and false-flagged. ~ BG. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Jun 21, 5:43*am, Brian Thorn wrote:
DS1 had already proven ion propulsion was viable over long durations, Perhaps, although it also proved them to be problematic. If you remember the reports in the early days of the hayabusa project they didnt want to use Ion propulsion but were forced into it by political machinations. Given the problems they eventually had with Ion propulsion seems their initial fears were correct. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On 6/20/2010 11:43 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
Nonsense. Hayabusa was a combination of NASA's NEAR Shoemaker, Stardust and Deep Space 1 missions. Which is interesting in itself. They took three "breakthrough" technologies that we used on three separate missions (and which JAXA had no experience with) and stuck them together in one spacecraft that did things no single one of ours ever has. That shows real daring and initiative. Besides which, the parachutes worked on their return capsule. ;-) Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On 6/20/2010 6:40 PM, tom Donnley wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:43 am, Brian wrote: DS1 had already proven ion propulsion was viable over long durations, Perhaps, although it also proved them to be problematic. If you remember the reports in the early days of the hayabusa project they didnt want to use Ion propulsion but were forced into it by political machinations. Given the problems they eventually had with Ion propulsion seems their initial fears were correct. It was made into a reliable form of propulsion from what was learned from DS-1 though, and our Dawn asteroid mission is using it right now: http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/ What few people remember (and NASA didn't exactly advertise) is that US tests of ion space propulsion went _decades_ back before DS-1; behold SERT 2 and its _nuclear-powered_ ion drive from 1970: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/sert.htm Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:29:33 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote: On 6/20/2010 11:43 AM, Brian Thorn wrote: Nonsense. Hayabusa was a combination of NASA's NEAR Shoemaker, Stardust and Deep Space 1 missions. Which is interesting in itself. They took three "breakthrough" technologies that we used on three separate missions (and which JAXA had no experience with) and stuck them together in one spacecraft that did things no single one of ours ever has. That shows real daring and initiative. Besides which, the parachutes worked on their return capsule. ;-) So did Stardust's. It was Genesis that went splat. Brian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How are the Japanese doing that?
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote: There's no possible comparison, as the Hayabusa was at least ten fold more complex. Nonsense. Hayabusa was a combination of NASA's NEAR Shoemaker, Stardust and Deep Space 1 missions. At most, this would seem to add up to three times more complex. But of course, it actually isn't because, for example, launch and return are no more complex for Hayabusa than they were for Stardust, DS1 had already proven ion propulsion was viable over long durations, and setting down on the asteroid was no more complex than it was for NEAR (in fact, probably less, since Hayabusa was actually designed to do that.) Your belittlement and discrediting of others is noted. So is your refusal to address any of the points I made or to simply admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. I stand by my assessment that your "no possible comparison" assertion is utter nonsense. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The end of the world in Japanese | Skycloud | UK Astronomy | 1 | June 27th 06 01:07 AM |
Japanese culture .. | elyob | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 5th 05 12:27 AM |
OT- Japanese Android | Pat Flannery | History | 0 | July 9th 05 10:04 PM |
OT- Japanese Android | Pat Flannery | Policy | 0 | July 9th 05 10:04 PM |
Japanese Refractors | Tom A. | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | September 12th 03 09:11 AM |