5 ms·

I don't get what the point is of a crewed flyby. The crew would just be cooped up in the craft the whole time with nothing to do except take measurements with i

by ufmace 4y ago

I don't get what the point is of a crewed flyby. The crew would just be cooped up in the craft the whole time with nothing to do except take measurements with instruments that could just as easily be done by a machine. This isn't the Apollo era, we're pretty confident we can send spacecraft all over the solar system and keep humans alive in space for years.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cratermoon 4y ago
There was, in fact, a plan in the Apollo Applications Program for a crewed Venus flyby, using the SIVB as a wet workshop for habitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby
dehrmann 4y ago
It would essentially be an ISS mission with a few extra rocket burn stages and a different view.
- xattt 4y ago
  Is a fully-assembled ISS capable of withholding torsional stress that would come from insertion burns?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Nobody is talking about doing an insertion
- Tepix 4y ago
  With a much different radiation environment.
layer8 4y ago
> we're pretty confident we can […] keep humans alive in space for years Are we? In outer space? Radiation, psychology/isolation, months away from any support in case of an emergency? My understanding is that there are a lot of open questions, and that even a mere fly-by mission would constitute a major new step in manned space flight.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Indeed, we should rather attempt sending such a ship in one piece to the moon first. Right now we would have problems actually assembling such a craft. Note how long and cost intensive it was to assemble a bigger space station. Gateway program is such a baby step, assembling a base in moon orbit. Ultimately, we would need an orbital facility to assemble bigger ships well without paying the immense costs of ultra heavy launches.
  - eganist 4y ago
    This is also why a moon base makes so much sense: * short enough that radiation issues can be swerved. * can build shielded moon bases (or dig them?) to protect people on the moon itself. * can mine the resources for and build heavy, shielded ships on the moon itself and launch far more cheaply. * can also build (on the moon) the shuttles needed to ferry people from earth orbit out to the moon, making it so that the only people exposed to any radiation at all are the first crew to arrive on the moon and stand up a moon base.
- ufmace 4y ago
  I'm not a super expect in space, but I'd argue yes. There is more radiation there, but we know how much and how to shield from it. The ISS does have an "escape module" descent craft allowing the crew to evacuate in a few minutes any time needed, but they've never had to use it yet. IMO that's a good argument that it isn't that big of a deal. Yes, it'll be a bit riskier for the crew in that there's no security blanket of a quick easy escape to Earth in the event of a real emergency, but well shit happens. I don't think there's anything going on as far as isolation that's really more severe than tons of other things that have already been done.

by ufmace 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cratermoon 4y ago

There was, in fact, a plan in the Apollo Applications Program for a crewed Venus flyby, using the SIVB as a wet workshop for habitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby

dehrmann 4y ago

It would essentially be an ISS mission with a few extra rocket burn stages and a different view.

xattt 4y ago
Is a fully-assembled ISS capable of withholding torsional stress that would come from insertion burns?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Nobody is talking about doing an insertion
Tepix 4y ago
With a much different radiation environment.

layer8 4y ago

> we're pretty confident we can […] keep humans alive in space for years Are we? In outer space? Radiation, psychology/isolation, months away from any support in case of an emergency? My understanding is that there are a lot of open questions, and that even a mere fly-by mission would constitute a major new step in manned space flight.

AstralStorm 4y ago
Indeed, we should rather attempt sending such a ship in one piece to the moon first. Right now we would have problems actually assembling such a craft. Note how long and cost intensive it was to assemble a bigger space station. Gateway program is such a baby step, assembling a base in moon orbit. Ultimately, we would need an orbital facility to assemble bigger ships well without paying the immense costs of ultra heavy launches.
- eganist 4y ago
  This is also why a moon base makes so much sense: * short enough that radiation issues can be swerved. * can build shielded moon bases (or dig them?) to protect people on the moon itself. * can mine the resources for and build heavy, shielded ships on the moon itself and launch far more cheaply. * can also build (on the moon) the shuttles needed to ferry people from earth orbit out to the moon, making it so that the only people exposed to any radiation at all are the first crew to arrive on the moon and stand up a moon base.
ufmace 4y ago
I'm not a super expect in space, but I'd argue yes. There is more radiation there, but we know how much and how to shield from it. The ISS does have an "escape module" descent craft allowing the crew to evacuate in a few minutes any time needed, but they've never had to use it yet. IMO that's a good argument that it isn't that big of a deal. Yes, it'll be a bit riskier for the crew in that there's no security blanket of a quick easy escape to Earth in the event of a real emergency, but well shit happens. I don't think there's anything going on as far as isolation that's really more severe than tons of other things that have already been done.