![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have been closely following the Mars mission and understand the importance
of the experiments, but certainly all of that gear ads complexity. Then I look at the photo's Cassini is sending back and am in awe. So I got to thinking, what the complexities be, in designing a probe that is just a hi res camera, and a transmitter/receiver. Considering economy of scale, if the device were small and simple, we could product them cheaply and in such quantities that we could launch them all over the solar system. Let them wander, take photo's and send them home. What are we talking in expense? complexity? doablibility? -- BV. www.iheartmypond.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The trouble with just photos is they only show what anything looks
like, they tell nothing about WHAT anything is made of. The rovers are about as simple as you can get and yet still be able to give good data about what they are testing. -- "Knowledge is a 3 edged Sword" Kosh on Babylon 5 www.starlords.org "BenignVanilla" wrote in message ... I have been closely following the Mars mission and understand the importance of the experiments, but certainly all of that gear ads complexity. Then I look at the photo's Cassini is sending back and am in awe. So I got to thinking, what the complexities be, in designing a probe that is just a hi res camera, and a transmitter/receiver. Considering economy of scale, if the device were small and simple, we could product them cheaply and in such quantities that we could launch them all over the solar system. Let them wander, take photo's and send them home. What are we talking in expense? complexity? doablibility? -- BV. www.iheartmypond.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, let's see. No propulsion system so no way to correct it's course,
meaning you'll miss your target by margins that will mean you probably won't see anything because you'll loat by millions of kilometers away. No reaction wheels or scan platform so no way to point the camera so no pictures. No power source mentioned, so no power if you did get it up there. No launch system mentioned, which would have to have a lot of sustained thrust to get it away from an Earth-orbit and into interplanetary space. No mention of what kind of antenna we're going to use. This is a real design driver on spacecraft, so simply designing a transmitter/receiver is only half your problem there. Actually a third or a fourth, because depending on your choice of antenna, power source, propulsion and pointing mechanism and its accuracy, these all drive the spacecraft design. I'll assume we're going to design in radiation-hard circuits and storage medium to allow for differences in the speed of the camera verses speed of transmission. That's the general list. It gets more involved after that. --- Dave "BenignVanilla" wrote in message ... I have been closely following the Mars mission and understand the importance of the experiments, but certainly all of that gear ads complexity. Then I look at the photo's Cassini is sending back and am in awe. So I got to thinking, what the complexities be, in designing a probe that is just a hi res camera, and a transmitter/receiver. Considering economy of scale, if the device were small and simple, we could product them cheaply and in such quantities that we could launch them all over the solar system. Let them wander, take photo's and send them home. What are we talking in expense? complexity? doablibility? -- BV. www.iheartmypond.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think we are entering the era of the robotic probe. Hundreds (1000's) will be
launched of varying complexity ... all at a fraction of the cost of one manned mission and with far more earth-bound economic impact. Im a firm believer in manned missions but they need to be reserved for important ventures on a brand new launch platform.... Saturn V-A ? jerry BenignVanilla wrote: I have been closely following the Mars mission and understand the importance of the experiments, but certainly all of that gear ads complexity. Then I look at the photo's Cassini is sending back and am in awe. So I got to thinking, what the complexities be, in designing a probe that is just a hi res camera, and a transmitter/receiver. Considering economy of scale, if the device were small and simple, we could product them cheaply and in such quantities that we could launch them all over the solar system. Let them wander, take photo's and send them home. What are we talking in expense? complexity? doablibility? -- BV. www.iheartmypond.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In my opion going BACKWARDS to another throw away booster is a waste
of time and energy and money. They could have had the next gen. of shuttle built by now and flying and be building manned mission crafts in orbit. -- "Knowledge is a 3 edged Sword" Kosh on Babylon 5 www.starlords.org "jerry warner" wrote in message ... I think we are entering the era of the robotic probe. Hundreds (1000's) will be launched of varying complexity ... all at a fraction of the cost of one manned mission and with far more earth-bound economic impact. Im a firm believer in manned missions but they need to be reserved for important ventures on a brand new launch platform.... Saturn V-A ? jerry BenignVanilla wrote: I have been closely following the Mars mission and understand the importance of the experiments, but certainly all of that gear ads complexity. Then I look at the photo's Cassini is sending back and am in awe. So I got to thinking, what the complexities be, in designing a probe that is just a hi res camera, and a transmitter/receiver. Considering economy of scale, if the device were small and simple, we could product them cheaply and in such quantities that we could launch them all over the solar system. Let them wander, take photo's and send them home. What are we talking in expense? complexity? doablibility? -- BV. www.iheartmypond.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Except that a throwaway booster is going to be less expensive for many
missions than running any shuttle. Why? Safety issues. If you have a cryogenic rocket (hydrogen and oxygen) in the shuttle hold, you've got a bomb in there waiting to go off is something goes wrong. Same with some other fuel/oxydizer combinations. But if you launch it on an unmanned expendible, you don't have to worry about Astronaut safety. Another factor is that manned boosters needs to keep their G-forces low enough to make sure the crew gets into space without being squashed. On expendibles you don't have this factor, and therefore you can use higher thrust, which might save on overwll weight. No, expendibles are a necessary part of a successful space program for decades to come. This is one of the fallacies that the shuttle program should have taught everyone. We TRIED going with a shuttle for all heavy lifting jobs, and it just didn't work. If we have any national will to do space exploration right, we NEED both a truly reusable shuttle AND a set of medium to heavy lift expendibles. --- Dave "starlord inreach.com" starlord* wrote in message ... In my opion going BACKWARDS to another throw away booster is a waste of time and energy and money. They could have had the next gen. of shuttle built by now and flying and be building manned mission crafts in orbit. "jerry warner" wrote in message ... I think we are entering the era of the robotic probe. Hundreds (1000's) will be launched of varying complexity ... all at a fraction of the cost of one manned mission and with far more earth-bound economic impact. Im a firm believer in manned missions but they need to be reserved for important ventures on a brand new launch platform.... Saturn V-A ? jerry BenignVanilla wrote: I have been closely following the Mars mission and understand the importance of the experiments, but certainly all of that gear ads complexity. Then I look at the photo's Cassini is sending back and am in awe. So I got to thinking, what the complexities be, in designing a probe that is just a hi res camera, and a transmitter/receiver. Considering economy of scale, if the device were small and simple, we could product them cheaply and in such quantities that we could launch them all over the solar system. Let them wander, take photo's and send them home. What are we talking in expense? complexity? doablibility? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If we have any national will to do space exploration right, we NEED both a
truly reusable shuttle AND a set of medium to heavy lift expendible And we need a reasonable assumption of risk to human life. Perhaps something equivalent to the average number of deaths per mile when compared to world-wide automobile use or general aviation aircraft. Edd |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Nakamoto" wrote in message ... If we have any national will to do space exploration right, we NEED both a truly reusable shuttle AND a set of medium to heavy lift expendibles. "We" (ie we Europeans) do have a heavy lift capability - Ariane 5, which has something like a 70% world-wide market share of the commercial launch business :-) Don't you think that it's a bit silly to bring "nationalism" into space exploration? Shouldn't "we" - the entire human race - be working together to achieve it, rather than talking about things like "national will"? Regards, Chris |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Reading that last message, it doesn't say what I meant to say. Let's have
another go... What I was trying to say is wouldn't it be more sensible for countries to cooperate in space exploration, rather than trying to "compete" for an out-moded concept of "nationalism"? The cold war is long, long over! ie, given that ESA has an excellent heavy lift vehicle in the form of Ariane 5, what would be the point of the US spending enormous sums of money to develop its own heavy lift capability? Would it not be more sensible to have international collaboration and (for example) the US to develop payloads for launch on ESA's launch vehicle? Regards, Chris |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris Marriott wrote:
What I was trying to say is wouldn't it be more sensible for countries to cooperate in space exploration, rather than trying to "compete" for an out-moded concept of "nationalism"? The cold war is long, long over! I don't think it's an issue of nationalism anymore. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that it's an issue of supporting the aerospace industry. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Search for ET Probes | Hobbs aka McDaniel | SETI | 14 | February 6th 04 07:49 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) | Lord Blacklight | Astronomy Misc | 56 | November 21st 03 03:45 PM |
"The Eagle has landed" NOT! | Mark McIntyre | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 16th 03 03:08 AM |
PX question | Bored Huge Krill | Astronomy Misc | 4 | August 10th 03 03:54 AM |