Are there anymore outer solar system space missions planned?

[DaveS]

Alas the Bussard ramjet has been shown to be a dead end. But an Orion ship could be built in orbit where the exhaust wouldn't be a problem.

We also need a successor to the Space Shuttle to be able to build such a ship. We'd also need it to build a manned Mars ship.

[Uranium235]

The next big event (although not outbound) will be the JWST in 2016, im quite looking forward to seeing that one go up and put together some spectacular images - assuming there are no technical hitches. Who knows, it might even push back our current ideas of just how old the universe is.

[DaveS]

Agree on the JWST, but we also need a near UV to near IR telescope to take over from Hubble. There are a few mentioned in the Aug 2014 AN. Problem is, if we put it into L1 then we can't yet service it intil we build better spaceships. So back to the earlier discussion.

[Stub Mandrel]

What we need are the 'tugs' that were always in 1970s space books. Manned or unmanned they could go and fetch back a satellite from one of the Lagrange points, even if it took ages to conserve fuel.

[DaveS]

Agreed, but it comes back to better engines. We need both high ISP and thrust, which we don't have together ATM. I'd also be looking at SSTO vehicles that can take off and land like conventional aircraft and can be reused like conventional aircraft. Imagine if the plane that took you on holiday was written off after one trip. Daft.

ACC said that the space shuttle was supposed to be the DC3 of space, but what we got was a DC 11/2. We need the full deal NOW.

[Pluto the Snowman]

*sigh*

There is, actually, technology developed almost to the point of being ready to go that could get us anywhere in the solar system in weeks rather than years. Problem is, discussion could lead us down forbidden roads (The dreaded "P" word), so I merely invite interested readers to google "Orion Project" and despair.

I frequent cycling forums where the "P word" clearly doesnt mean the same thing as it does on an astro forum.

Also what is the theoretical tech that can get to Pluto in less than a year? I assume this tech means some sort of spacecraft, not shining a light at it or some other twist of words.

[Pluto the Snowman]

Agreed, but it comes back to better engines. We need both high ISP and thrust, which we don't have together ATM. I'd also be looking at SSTO vehicles that can take off and land like conventional aircraft and can be reused like conventional aircraft. Imagine if the plane that took you on holiday was written off after one trip. Daft.

ACC said that the space shuttle was supposed to be the DC3 of space, but what we got was a DC 11/2. We need the full deal NOW.

There is your answer, right there. 

Assuming you mean like the Harrier Jumpjet, then you would be looking at fuel logistics improvement instead. I imagine this still ignores loads of physics neither of us know about, but still good to fantasize, innit?

[DaveS]

OK, the "P" word on this forum means Politics, definitely forbidden. Since the Orion Project / spacecraft involves detonating a series of small atomic devices (Not simple bombs, there's reaction mass involved too) behind the spaceship it would fall foul of the Test Ban Treaty (And the "P" word) Which is why I didn't want to talk too much about it, and I hope I've not strayed beyond the boundaries in saying this much. BUT an Orion ship has both the thrust and crazy-high ISP to go anywhere in the solar system Fast.

And I wasn't talking in terms of VTOL in postulating a SSTO launcher, but an evolution of Skylon / HOTOL (And the dreaded "P" word again).

ACC had a form of SSTO spaceplane in "Prelude to Space", but since it involved heating atmospheric air in an atomic pile ramjet, spewing out huge amounts of NO_x it's not exactly environmentally friendly.

[Tzitzis]

Check this out: How about we go to mars normally, set up a station and make all our future space ships there. Closer to outer solar system anyway...And we could test the nuclear stuff there. 

[Moon-Watcher]

Going to Mars is a WHOLE different ball game to the Moon.

Some ideas:

1)  Supplies will be a big problem.  Send unmanned orbiters to Mars FULL of supplies to dock with.

2) Accommodation.  Why not send a couple of rockets with "accommodation modules" to land on Mars in readiness.

3) A hellovalot of energy will be needed to launch from Earth.  Have re-fuellers in orbit around the Earth

How is this going to happen?  No idea.  Throw enough money at it and it will happen.

Like I said, the year long(?) trip to Mars is TOTALLY different than the week or so trip to the Moon.

More planning and desire - will(?) - must be needed to make this happen.

Mark

[Tzitzis]

Of course Mark. But I thought that having a station in the Moon isn't going to help a lot in the efforts of space travel (fast) to Pluto let's say. I mean it's near the Earth. 

If we had space stations on the Moon to try the Nuclear rocket there it could maybe affect the earth?

I do know that they are thinking of making space stations in the Moon with accomodtion but not for the stuff I wrote about

[Moon-Watcher]

No idea 

Which is ironic, because I'm an idea's man 

I'm just thinking out loud 

[DaveS]

The Moon is already most of the way out of Earth's gravity well and has only half of Mars's gravity with no atmosphere to get in the way. Mars is still quite close to Earth compared to the outer system.

[Stub Mandrel]

This is quite interesting and well written: http://gizmodo.com/how-did-we-get-to-pluto-so-fast-1716533356

[symesie04]

This might shed some extra light on a lack of orbiter missions for those far flung planets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33777350

[DaveS]

Interesting read that, thanks for posting.

I'm thinking that from here on in any "big" missions (eg Mars lander, Pluto orbiter) are going to be so big as to need international collaboration, simply for financial / resource considerations. They may also turn out to be long term multi phase projects, possibly needing lunar / asteroidal mining, and lunar bases.

I can't hep thinking that a Mars mission is really going to need something like the ISS with engines.

[Moon-Watcher]

Interesting read that, thanks for posting.

I'm thinking that from here on in any "big" missions (eg Mars lander, Pluto orbiter) are going to be so big as to need international collaboration, simply for financial / resource considerations. They may also turn out to be long term multi phase projects, possibly needing lunar / asteroidal mining, and lunar bases.

I can't hep thinking that a Mars mission is really going to need something like the ISS with engines.

Yes, I was more than dissapointed to see the capsule for the next manned flights.  They really do seem like Apollo Command Module on steroids - slightly bigger with touch screen technology instead of toggle type switches.  What they need for long journeys is to be able to get out of each other's faces and have room to excercise.  Otherwise, when they hit gravity on Mars, it could prove VERY difficult for them to do anything there.

Mark

PS  Except maybe spend time excercising in those modules I spoke about in an earlier post?  Hmmm...

[DaveS]

Yes, when I saw that Orion capsule and they said four men were going to Mars in it I thought "do what?    "

It might be OK as a lunar transit vehicle for maybe 3 days, but for 9 months? Someone in NASA needs a severe reality check.

[Stub Mandrel]

I found this in on wikipedia:

"

"Mars missions

Main article: Human mission to Mars

The Orion capsule is designed to support future missions to send astronauts to Mars. Since the Orion capsule provides only about 2.25 m³ (79 cu ft) of living space per crew member,^[7] the use of an additional Deep Space Habitat module will be required for long duration missions. The habitat module will provide additional space and supplies, as well as facilitate spacecraft maintenance, mission communications, exercise, training, and personal recreation.^[89] During such long term missions, the Orion capsule itself will normally only be fully occupied by the crew during launch, splash-down, and other crew-transfer operations. Some plans for DSH modules would provide approximately 70.0 m³ (2,472 cu ft) of living space per crew member,^[89] though the DSH module is currently only in its early planning stages. DSH sizes and configurations may vary slightly, depending on crew and mission requirements.^[90]"

[DaveS]

Ah, that makes more sense, but the time-frame and radiation dose is more than a little worrying.

I'm thinking we need to send robot miners ahead of the main expedition to build subsurface refuges for the astronauts to hide in as soon as they get there, and better engines on the ship to get there FAST so there's less exposure to radiation en route.

[DaveS]

While doing an idle Google search on pulsed fusion rockets (As one does  ) I came across this site but neglected to post it at the time.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php

I thought it might make an entertaining read if nothing else, but he (They?) does (Do?) go into considerable detail about various options of varying degrees of possibility.