^Not Morpheus, they are developing that at JSC. Morpheus had a testing failure a few months back and exploded actually. We are doing the Mighty Eagle here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lunarquest/robotic/12-085.html

One of the guys in my branch is the lead systems engineer for Mighty Eagle, he's actually an NCSU alum. I think he actually has an account on TWW but he's at most a lurker and I don't think he's been active in a few years.

4/11/2013 9:53:56 AM

ah i hadn't heard of that one... looks awesome. My understanding was that there aren't funds in the NASA budget to design/build a lunar lander, hence the lack of a lunar landing in the long term plan.

4/11/2013 10:06:45 AM

Technically these aren't "Lunar" landers. They are just "No atmosphere" landers that could be used in any space environment including the moon so maybe that is the loophole they are getting funded through our something.

4/11/2013 11:07:12 AM

There is also the difference between a small robotic lander and a large human lander.

4/11/2013 11:58:51 AM

Quote :

"Kind of a cop out in my opinion, but still intriguing none the less. Chances of it actually happening? I don't know but doubt very high. "

Building a moon lander actually sounds really stupid to me right now. The asteroid plan is brilliant. It gets man out of LEO and it is the cheapest way to explore something validly novel in the solar system with people. It also rides on some private sector excitement about what we can do with asteroids.

The 7 m diameter asteroid, btw, will be roughly the same mass as the ISS. Just think about that - we spent so much resources putting the ISS into orbit, but now we have something not bound to the Earth's or moon surface that we might be able to use the material from someday.

We have no plan that would get us back to the moon in a way that scales up into the future. This will. It actually opens new doors, as opposed to dumbly competing for current resources.

4/11/2013 2:37:34 PM

^those are all very valid points. After i wrote my statement about it being a cop out I thought about it... although with this mission there are no plans to, but that mass could definitely be used at least as shielding material (radiation, micrometeor) for an outpost at L2.



in the end i'm betting this goes the way of a lot of recent nasa problems... lack of funding leading to slips in schedule leading to cancellation.

[Edited on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2013 2:48:49 PM

Speaking of outposts at L2...

I read a paper about using a liquid hydrogen fuel tank from the SLS and outfitting it Skylab style. Again, something that would be really fucking cool but will probably never see the light of day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/03/nasas-house-sized-deep-space-station-skylab-2_n_3004649.html

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/04/17601955-nasa-could-make-skylab-ii-first-deep-space-home?lite

[Edited on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2013 2:59:23 PM

^ a paper? I think you read that from TWW.

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=527903

And the idea wasn't from NASA or academics, it was from a bunch of space groupies.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm

I'm not saying there's no merit to it. Clearly, by not trashing the stages you can increase the mass of an orbiting station much faster. This group also hoped to send up rockets carrying 100 people each. That sounds crazy, but if you just took the Saturn V LEO payload and divide by the mass per crew of modern rockets, you easily find that it might actually work. With such a large space station for them to visit, it might actually make sense. And this is all 1960s-esque technology. Granted, it would take the full resources of the Apollo program, but it would also feel like we were getting somewhere.

That thread, btw, had my favorite quote from TWW of all time

Quote :

"The idea of using spent Space Shuttle fuel tanks is not new. It was once considered by Nasa as the basis for its own space station. However it was discarded as being too simple. It was possibly also seen as too commercial for an organisation that sees its role mainly in research and development."

4/11/2013 3:17:30 PM

i think we are talking about two different things. the thread you are linking to was from 2008, and was talking about using SHUTTLE tanks... this one specifically uses the hydrogen pressure vessel from an upper stage of the SLS, which is being designed currently. I can't find the original presentation I read (it's saved on my home computer) but I found a couple of news articles about the concept.

4/11/2013 3:21:11 PM

^ So is that idea unique from what Skylab was? In Skylab they didn't actually reuse a fuel tank, they just replaced the moon stuff with a workshop?

4/11/2013 3:34:08 PM

This plan is very similar to skylab... retrofitted (empty) fuel tank, stuffed with supplies. (not a "wet workshop" re-using a spent fuel tank.)




[Edited on April 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2013 3:36:58 PM

Quote :

"(not a "wet workshop" re-using a spent fuel tank.)"

Why do they call it "tank-based" in your link?

And why can't they just use the SLS tank like the shuttle tank idea? Here, just use the upper stage too. Empty it out and pressurize it. Then tape bits of the asteroid all around the outside for radiation protection.

4/11/2013 3:52:33 PM

ah, found the Delta V

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

EML1: 3.77
EML2: 3.43
EML4/5: 3.97
LLO: 4.04
escape: 3.22

So even though EML2 is unstable, it's cheaper than the other points to get to. Although not as cheap as just escaping Earth's gravity.

^ So I think i'm getting that image now. The arrows are trying to say that they'll illustrating the tank inside the habitat, for no apparent reason. The habitat is actually filled with air and other stuff. It doesn't start out with propellant in it.

[Edited on April 11, 2013 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2013 4:06:39 PM

a "wet workshop" is when you use the spent tank and re-purpose it to hold an atmosphere and crew while it is in orbit. This was floated as a way to build Skylab, but was deemed overly complicated to pull off.

Skylab (the original, along with this proposal) uses a new tank that has never been filled with fuel as the pressure vessel for the habitat. This is then upgraded and stocked on the ground, and sent up as the payload of the rocket. So the main part of the station's structure IS the tank... just modified and stocked on the ground. The benefit is you don't have to re-engineer a completely new pressure vessel, test it, manufacture it, etc. You are using and "off the shelf" part.

The picture above is showing how the pressure vessel is situated in the rocket stage. the "outer skin" is attached to the tank at liftoff and would presumably remain attached.

I am at home now and have the PDF of the original presentation (but not of the paper its self)... If anyone is curious and wants to read it PM me your email and I can send you a copy (or is there a good place online i could upload it and share via link??)



[Edited on April 11, 2013 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2013 6:21:00 PM

http://www.scribd.com/

?

But no, I still don't understand. Are you saying the SLS Skylab 2 is a wet workshop plan or a dry workshop plan? Why does the above image have Skylab II Habitat located above the H2 tank? In the left image, there's a H2 Tank in the Upper Stage (I'm reading directly from the diagram), and above the upper stage is the habitat. If the H2 tank is surrounded by a shell that will be used for something... then why do they have a shell in addition to the habitat?

Or is the left image not of the Skylab 2 idea? Are the images showing the transition from the ordinary SLS design to the Skylab 2 design?

4/11/2013 7:17:07 PM

skylab II would NOT be a wet workshop. it would be an extra, modified hydrogen tank originally designed to be part of an upper stage of the SLS rocket. The picture of the entire rocket is showing the skylab II (already converted from a fuel tank to space station) sitting on top of the rocket, ready to launch.

The "outside" of the tank is the outer wall of the rocket (i don't know what the technical name is.)... look closer at the different stages... inside of each stage of the rocket are individual tanks for Hydrogen and Liquid oxygen. The individual tank for hydrogen would be converted into the pressurized section of the station.The outer wall would remain on the pressure vessel in part as a shield against micro meteoroid and orbital debris impacts



[Edited on April 11, 2013 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2013 8:40:42 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135477555/Skylab-II-Presentation?secret_password=n6bil2acfwne3ukfy2d

4/11/2013 8:49:38 PM

^ok, so taken down because of http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31601.0

4/12/2013 7:10:25 AM

Hey dudes! NASA Marshall Space Flight Center just announced SIX vacancies in the Engineering Directorate. These are ENTRY LEVEL positions and are only available to recent graduates (those who graduated with a BS or MS within the past 2 years). Specifically we are looking for people with degrees in Aerospace, Mechanical, Electrical, Computer, and Materials Engineering, but those with degrees in other types of engineering or applied science will also be considered. The job announcement is only open until April 17 so if you are graduating this May (or know someone who is that would be interested), you'll need to apply ASAP. Please PM me if you want more info or would like to apply.


SIDENOTE: Would any premies mind bumping this topic for me: /message_topic.aspx?topic=592871 ? I'd like to post in there too.

4/13/2013 3:02:05 PM

(everyone can bump old threads now)

4/13/2013 3:16:02 PM

from playlist

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE8C83FF0367EEF8C

we have new video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8OUL9QYNpI



Here are some of the updates mentioned in it. I had not seen these yet because I stopped checking some time ago.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16818.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16912.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16911.html

4/13/2013 9:00:53 PM

4/14/2013 12:52:33 PM

unmanned test launch today from Virginia...

http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html

5:00pm

4/17/2013 4:31:00 PM

scrubbed for the day.

4/17/2013 5:03:40 PM

now new images now because of this

4/18/2013 8:51:03 AM

Might I be of some assistance?

4/18/2013 12:16:52 PM

anyone care to explain frogger's gif?

also, something in the news about 3 newly discovered planets being the closest to earth-like planets of those found thus far.

4/18/2013 3:51:09 PM

^ the gif a few posts up was showing the dots made by the laser.

It burns rock with a laser, then points cameras at it and does science. The video update just above it covered what the science was.

A "sol" is a Martian day. So those were images taken from a really long time period.

4/18/2013 5:02:33 PM

Quote :

"does science"

ಠ_ಠ

4/18/2013 5:03:18 PM

what? they had like powerpoint slides and all.

4/18/2013 5:06:15 PM

It would be absolutely amazing to be able to see what Mars looked like when it had a thicker atmosphere, and liquid water oceans/rivers... i can't fathom that it could have rivers, but still be brownish rock on the shores.

And do we know exactly when it started to lose its atmosphere and (possibly) change orbit? Have there been any attempts to correlate Mars' huge impact crater with this process? And if a meteor impact did affect Mars' climate and maybe orbit, what would this have meant for Earth?

4/18/2013 7:04:03 PM

a leading thought is that since mars has a much weaker magnetic field and lower gravity, the solar wind eroded away it's atmosphere over time.

4/18/2013 9:10:48 PM

But how would the atmosphere have developed in the first place?

4/19/2013 12:25:12 AM

^ to begin with the sun was not as hot



And second, it did get blown away. It's just that in the early solar system, the accretion of gas molecules from space was greater than the loss into space.

4/19/2013 8:37:32 AM

super long epic story about mars exploration

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/22/130422fa_fact_bilger

4/19/2013 6:03:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_%28rocket%29

Quote :

"Antares, known initially in development as Taurus II, is an expendable launch system developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation. Designed to launch payloads of mass up to 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) into low-Earth orbit, it made its maiden flight on 21 April 2013,[3] after its launch was postponed 20 April 2013 due to strong winds."

That's a pretty substantial payload size. It's the same as the Falcon 9.

Is Falcon Heavy going to happen? What's the status of that?

And did the Antares launch actually take payload to the ISS? Or what it was just a test flight? If so, where did its payload go?

4/21/2013 7:59:18 PM

Falcon Heavy is scheduled to be tested later this year.


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/most-powerful-space-rocket

[Edited on April 22, 2013 at 7:20 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2013 7:19:06 AM

You say that so nonchalantly. Wouldn't that be like a giant deal?

I take it they're not going to have the reusable grasshopper stages? Is that right?

And it'll just be used to haul stuff up into orbit. But why? What kinds of projects would that be supporting? I guess the test this year won't deliver anything? But does the Falcon Heavy have any place in NASA's strategic planning?

4/22/2013 7:35:22 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia_II#Energia_II_.28Uragan.29

Quote :

"Unlike the Energia, which was planned to be semi-reusable (like that of the U.S. Space Shuttle), the Uragan design would have allowed the complete recovery of all Buran/Energia elements, like that of the original totally reusable Orbiter/Booster concept of the U.S. "

What? How does that even work?



Tanks can't fly. It's just a tank! Do they have retractable wings? What on Earth is going on here?

4/22/2013 7:41:16 AM

Quote :

"You say that so nonchalantly. Wouldn't that be like a giant deal? I take it they're not going to have the reusable grasshopper stages? Is that right? And it'll just be used to haul stuff up into orbit. But why? What kinds of projects would that be supporting? I guess the test this year won't deliver anything? But does the Falcon Heavy have any place in NASA's strategic planning?"

ha don't confuse my brevity with a blasé attitude. It's very early on a Monday morning

my understanding is that the grasshopper stuff is still in early development/testing, and the term "grasshopper" is reserved for their testing rig... which will lead to a reusable Falcon 9, which is still multiple years away.

Falcon Heavy has already booked a few customers... one for a communications satellite(s) to go to geosynchronous orbit, and another DOD contract but I dont remember exactly what that is.

Long term, Elon Musk wants to make it possible to go to Mars. The Falcon Heavy will reduce launch costs (it is thought) enough to make that feasible.

4/22/2013 8:46:23 AM

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120529

Quote :

"Capable of lifting 53 metric tons (117,000 pounds) to low Earth orbit and over 12 metric tons (26,000 pounds) to GTO, Falcon Heavy will provide more than twice the performance to low Earth orbit of any other launch vehicle. This will allow SpaceX to launch the largest satellites ever flown and will enable new missions. Building on the reliable flight proven architecture of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, Falcon Heavy is also designed for exceptional reliability, meeting both NASA human rating standards as well as the stringent U.S. Air Force requirements for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, making it an attractive solution for commercial, civil and military customers."

That's a big geosynchronous satellite!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat

It is absolutely beyond me to understand what a 26 ton satellite could do that the present-day 2 to 6 ton satellites don't do.

That's a lot of... hard drives?

4/22/2013 9:45:03 AM

i don't know a ton about satellite tech, but if there is a demand and the customer is willing to pay for it...

oh, and

Quote :

"Capable of lifting 53 metric tons (117,000 pounds) to low Earth orbit and over 12 metric tons (26,000 pounds) to GTO, "

GTO is a transfer orbit to Geostationary, so 12 tons to GTO I would assume includes fuel to circularize the geosynchronous orbit.

[Edited on April 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2013 9:46:37 AM

oh...

So basically it would be about as large as their current satellites.

4/22/2013 10:30:45 AM

read up on some Falcon Heavy stuff... most speculation is that there will be a dummy payload (mass simulator) for the test launch. People want to see it put a Dragon around the moon, but i doubt they would go that route for their first launch.

4/22/2013 10:49:43 AM

If the Falcon Heavy could lift something that could go around the moon for $125 million that would be pretty boss.

4/22/2013 12:08:05 PM

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/

article about upgrading the design of the F-1 rockets (used in the Saturn V) for possible use for the boosters on the SLS

4/23/2013 9:38:40 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/24/mars-rover-penis-nasa_n_3144656.html

4/24/2013 10:24:53 PM

Quote :

"It's not clear which of the rovers drew the shape, or even when it was made."

Really Huff Post? You can't go to the very NASA sites you linked to?

It's Spirit btw.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/pia07342

4/25/2013 9:17:39 AM

fyi it wasn't really an on purpose penis. but hey, whatever brings attention to the space program right?

4/25/2013 9:41:01 AM

It's pretty good honestly. You would have a hard time drawing a better penis if you tried.

It's also a panorama, so they painstakingly put it together from many pictures. Drawing phallus on other planets is hard work.

4/25/2013 10:15:01 AM