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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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