 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / November 2006Lost in Space
I recently learne that NASA is planning to send a probe to Europa in 2015. But for some reason, I started thinking, what if it was not an unmmaned probe that we were sending, but a manned mission to Europa. Let's just say. Not an easy mission. A dangerous misison even. It would take six years to reach Europa. That's along time. Its a long, long way to go. 780,000,000 km from the Earth. Long, long way. And becuase of the way my brain works, I suddenly wondered what would happen if, for some reason (never mind how) it went dark. All communication was lost with the vessel. I wondered a few questions. (please don't sniker if they sound stupid) One, would we still be able to track it? Or would it be "lost". Could telescopes see something that far that is so small? (a research vessel would be quite small compared to planets or moons) Basically, could we "lose" it? Two, if it was possible to "lose" it once we lost contact, would we, NASA or ESA for example, bother trying to mount a rescue mission? I would imagine building another vehicle capable o just a journey...would be expensive. Would we spend millions to resuce five or six people. Just wondering. Dean >I recently learne that NASA is planning to send a probe to Europa in 2015. > But for some reason, I started thinking, what if it was not an unmanned > probe that we were sending, but a manned mission to Europa. > Let's Well, unless we do some amazing catch up in the next few years, something important would fail and kill the crew well before it got there... just say. > Not an easy mission. A dangerous mission even. It would take six years to > reach Europa. That's along time. Its a long, long way to go. 780,000,000 > km from the Earth. Long, long way. Yes, need to be a nuclear powered mission. Very big vehicle then. And because of the way > my brain works, I suddenly wondered what would happen if, for some reason > (never mind how) it went dark. All communication was lost with the vessel. > I wondered a few questions. (please don't sniker if they sound stupid) OK, but can I just grin a bit? > One, would we still be able to track it? Or would it be "lost". Could > telescopes see something that far that is so small? (a research vessel > would be quite small compared to planets or moons) Basically, could we > "lose" it? Well, I'd imagine we might be able to track it out as far as Mars by then, but if there was a total failure, what would be the point, as everyone would be dead? Never see it that far out. > Two, if it was possible to "lose" it once we lost contact, would we, NASA > or ESA for example, bother trying to mount a rescue mission? I would > imagine building another vehicle capable o just a journey...would be > expensive. Would we spend millions to rescue five or six people. No, it would not be possible as to catch it you would need to be going faster, and assuming the use of gravity assists etc, its not going to be a case of just chasing it. No, lights out is goodnight Vienna . > Just wondering. > Dean Which is one reason nobody would do it in the first place. I sometimes wonder if you presented a one way mission and asked for volunteers, if you would get some. Brian>  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. >> I recently learne that NASA is planning to send a probe to Europa in 2015. >> But for some reason, I started thinking, what if it was not an unmanned [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> I wondered a few questions. (please don't sniker if they sound stupid) > OK, but can I just grin a bit? Grin away. Most of friends just roll their eyes. >> One, would we still be able to track it? Or would it be "lost". Could >> telescopes see something that far that is so small? (a research vessel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > then, but if there was a total failure, what would be the point, as > everyone would be dead? Never see it that far out. They would not necessarily be dead. Just imagine a catastrophic faiure in the communications systems. The ship is fine. Crew is fine. Just absolutely no contact. I suppose I just thought, if it went dark, then telescopes could "find" it knowing their last position after it went quiet. >> Two, if it was possible to "lose" it once we lost contact, would we, >> NASA or ESA for example, bother trying to mount a rescue mission? I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > faster, and assuming the use of gravity assists etc, its not going to > be a case of just chasing it. No, lights out is goodnight Vienna . I never thought of that. of course. >> Just wondering. >> Dean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Brian> Thanks so much for feedback. >I sometimes wonder if you presented a one way mission and asked for >volunteers, if you would get some. You'd get any number of them - whether a significant number of them are qualified, or trainable, or the kind of person you'd want to send in the _first_ place... Is a very different question. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> I sometimes wonder if you presented a one way mission and asked for >> volunteers, if you would get some. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > D. You are so right. I recently produced a documentary on neural interfaces. All of the neuroscientists I interviewed recieved regular emails from normal people volunteering their brains to have implants put in them. > I recently learne that NASA is planning to send a probe to Europa in 2015. > But for some reason, I started thinking, what if it was not an unmmaned > probe that we were sending, but a manned mission to Europa. The radiation belts around Jupiter are way too intense for humans to survive. No known practical shielding methods exist, so this mission is currently not do-able. >> I recently learne that NASA is planning to send a probe to Europa in 2015. >> But for some reason, I started thinking, what if it was not an unmmaned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > survive. No known practical shielding methods exist, so this mission > is currently not do-able. Of course you are right. I was more hung up about the loss of communication with long term missions. It is conceivable that sometime, in a few decades, we may start undertaking long range space travel. I was just playing a thought experiment. What if? What if a spaceship went off to Europa and all its communication gear went dead. What would or could happen. But of course, at least for the very near future, you are totally right. >>> I recently learne that NASA is planning to send a probe to Europa in >>> 2015. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > communication gear went dead. What would or could happen. > But of course, at least for the very near future, you are totally right. I suspect they will be provided with multiple communication options with enough redundancy that if they all failed there would be little chance of the ship remaining habitable. > I suspect they will be provided with multiple communication options with > enough redundancy that if they all failed there would be little chance of > the ship remaining habitable. One exception would be loss of attitude control. Consider the Mars Observer back in 1992. This unmanned probe abruptly stopped communicating. There was a plan to point Hubble at Mars to take a look. Although Hubble could not see the probe, it would be able to see the glare as the probe fired up its engines to slide into Mars orbit. Unfortunately Mars was too close to the Sun at the time, so Hubble didn't get the chance. However, if there was a loss of attitude control (which is exactly what we think happened to the Mars Observer), then an engine firing would not have been possible. A more likely answer is that if we ever send a manned craft to a deep-space target, it would likely be preceded by lots of unmanned craft. Look at Mars for example. When we finally get there, we will have a full orbital communications network, a Martian GPS and the astronauts will be tipping over old rovers. Thus if we lose communication with the astronauts, we'd be able to look for them using robotic assets already in place. >> I suspect they will be provided with multiple communication options >> with enough redundancy that if they all failed there would be little [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stopped communicating. There was a plan to point Hubble at Mars to > take a look. You sure about that? The first Hubble servicing mission wasn't until December 1993, and until then, Hubble didn't have the resolution to see much of anything. > A more likely answer is that if we ever send a manned craft to a > deep-space target, it would likely be preceded by lots of unmanned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > communication with the astronauts, we'd be able to look for them using > robotic assets already in place. I agree there will be robotic assets, but I don't think they will be as extensive as you paint it. A Martian GPS (MPS?) is a nice luxury but will likely be one of the first things axed when overruns start occurring on the manned side of the mission. There will be plenty of Mars orbiters between now and the first manned landing but as MGS showed, even the best- engineered of them may not last that long. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >> A more likely answer is that if we ever send a manned craft to a >> deep-space target, it would likely be preceded by lots of unmanned [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >likely be one of the first things axed when overruns start occurring on the >manned side of the mission. The sad part is that, despite the limited utility of a M-GPS type of system, somebody will probably propose one and millions will be wasted on developing it. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL snip > Consider the Mars Observer back in 1992. This unmanned probe abruptly > stopped communicating. There was a plan to point Hubble at Mars to > take a look. Although Hubble could not see the probe, it would be able > to see the glare as the probe fired up its engines to slide into Mars > orbit. Are you sure about this? I wouldn't think the "glare" or those small engines could be seen by Hubble. Danny Dot www.mobbinggonemad.org snip > Are you sure about this? I wouldn't think the "glare" or those small > engines could be seen by Hubble. Hmm, I can't seem to find anything online to confirm this. On the other hand, the planet chart at www.heavens-above.com seems to indicate that there was about a 35 degree angle between Mars and the Sun from Earth on 21 Aug 1993. Hubble's normal cutoff is around 50 degrees (I can only find one reference to this). Which correlates with what I heard at the time which was that using Hubble was technically possible but not worth the extreme risk, given that the resulting information would likely not tell us how to rescue the probe. As for picking up the engine glare, I suspect that any such hypothetical observations would be a difference operation. Take a grossly over-exposed shot of Mars. Take a grossly over-exposed shot of Mars + Mars Observer. Mathematically subtract the two images. Look for non-random differences. One advantage of this sort of observations is that one is just counting photons, not trying to build a sharp image. So the uncorrected flaw in Hubble's mirror would not have made any significant difference. Another thing that would help is that one would be looking for the characteristic wavelength generated by the monomethyl hydrazine fuel in Mars Observer's engines. I've no idea what the spectra of burning monomethyl hydrazine is, but Hubble has got an extensive set of filters which could be juggled to get rid of as much background light as possible. >> Are you sure about this? I wouldn't think the "glare" or those small >> engines could be seen by Hubble. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > which could be juggled to get rid of as much background light as > possible. Nice post, Thanks. I am not going to say I know Hubble could not have seen the rocket plume. Danny Dot www.mobbinggonemad.org snip > I was more hung up about the loss of communication with long term > missions. It is conceivable that sometime, in a few decades, we may start > undertaking long range space travel. I was just playing a thought > experiment. What if? What if a spaceship went off to Europa and all its > communication gear went dead. What would or could happen. > But of course, at least for the very near future, you are totally right. I don't think we have a radar or visual track on deep space probes. I think without an active communication on the probe, we would loose it completely, i.e. it would become invisible to us. Danny Dot www.mobbinggonemad.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.