Talk:Nautilus-X: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:44, 28 September 2012

Spaceflight C‑class Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Substance

Has anything actually happened, or is this all just hypothetical? 68.49.23.150 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused... is this a vessel to travel to another planet / moon or is it a space station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.123.181 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vehicle (a Winnebago is actually pretty close.) A space station, with a solar-electric or similar propulsion system attached, could overlap with a deep-spaceship a good deal. Lately NASA folks have been looking at a High Earth Orbit station, probably to go at Earth-Moon/L2, which could look very similar, especially if should be parked for months or years at HEO or in Mars orbit, and then take off to cross over to some convenient elsewhere.

Another likely such place would be Sun-Earth/L2, which will probably become the premier site for astronomy in the 21st Century. With just a little propulsion it could provide a cozy habitat for technicians to repair or upgrade the instruments or optics out there, and then bring them home when the work is done. Wwheaton (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article

I was looking for a Nautilus-X wiki article and google pointed me here. This is a heck of a start. It's better than a lot of pages out there that aren't marked 'stub'. I'd be happy to contribute when it goes prime time. The only correction I have is that in the third image, Nautilus-X Extended duration explorer.png, one of the labels should be spelled 'descent' vs 'decent'. I'd fix it myself, but I'm no good with image editing. I try to stick to code and article text. aremisasling (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I just plan on adding a bit more information, and then I'll move it to the article name space within the next couple of hours. I'll be more then glad if you can contribute then as well! Xionbox^₪ 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. I wonder if the NASA gang knows about this. I've been in communication with the JSC and Langley folks, and will try to get them to keep us posted on any reliably sourced materials we can use. Raising the consciousness of the interested community outside NASA seems like a good idea, if it can be done within Wikipedia's POV & COI rules of course. (Being a fanatic myself, I must keep these issues in mind.) Wwheaton (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting article, and I'm more than willing to provide help when necessary. Message me if you need a hand. --Rsteilberg 05:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see mention of the LEO it would take around Earth. Obviously, LEO as a low radiation area would be the best parking space near Earth. Is it not there? Or, am I just missing it? Thanks. 99.73.37.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It seem more likely that it would be parked at Lagrange Points (Earth-Moon or Earth L2) to avoid the gravity well. But seriously this is all a bunch of nonsense. They cannot even afford small science probes.--92.225.95.180 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right..., so what's that on Mars today? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that this would be a perfect vehicle for establishing a Mars Exploration Base Camp on Phobos. Using the Moon as a gravity assist, a launch from ISS to reach Mars orbit should be cheaper (in terms of delta V) than a launch to GTO. Or from Earth/Moon L1, with a solar-electric ion drive, it should be possible to almost land on Phobos with negligible further expense. Phobos would go a long way towards meeting the NASA asteroid visit objective, could provide useful material resources, and a site (on the Mars-facing side) easy to protect from the high-energy galactic cosmic rays, which are a problem for deep space travel and habitation generally. It also has the advantage of being large and reachable from Earth, coming or going, every 26 months, unlike most other NEAs. Such a base would also be a terrific location for commanding next-generation surface rovers, robots, and scientific laboratories. I think this could be done by 2030 if we committed to it as the next step for NASA's Space Exploration Initiative. Wwheaton (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TAAT PowerPoint

The University of Texas has a better and easier to read version of the power point on their servers at spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Holderman-Henderson_1-26-11/Holderman_1-26-11.ppt

It is also available on googledocs at https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dnjOy_BGl6gJ:spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Holderman-Henderson_1-26-11/Holderman_1-26-11.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg7nuXK3_hSJjtNx6qFSmV4_PM5EP39VPn6KR6TNw_3D1RDjeTAS25-LfbQagap5yUC6KqDIFMJDM8iTZuG05h8eScaFJki9XejXcLwSLiIgZBArezMqCO64mcRPEH1NUHpkmPR&sig=AHIEtbSvmXRoV-uLJa-gb9ah86lF5JUoHg&pli=1

Could this be updated?