Talk:Nautilus-X

Substance

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

This is a proposal being advocated by a group of folks within NASA, from several NASA centers, seeking to come up with plans for the future. The study by the group is supported by NASA, but there are other proposals being studied and advocated by others groups and individuals within and outside NASA. It is not yet anything like a going program that "NASA wants", but ideas get studied and circulated within the agency for critical evaluation and review. Such technical review and refinement costs some money of course, and administrators within the agency have some funds and discretion to get such study work done. Then the better ideas bubble up until they get formally proposed by the Agency. Only at that point can we say "NASA wants" this or that. And then a program must be approved by the Administration, and funded by Congress before it moves from a study phase into development, detailed design, and execution. I have not heard anything later than the AIAA paper mentioned below. Of course everything depends on the political and budgetary situation that emerges in the next weeks or months. Wwheaton (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

Actually I was just pointing out the previous anonymous IP post's hippocracy given that Curiosity rover had landed just two days prior and they were implying that NASA "cannot even afford small science probes", which rubbed me the wrong way. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I get annoyed myself with academics who think the space program is supposed to be driven by "Science!" when I (as a fanatic...) know, in my heart of hearts, it is driven by popular (ie, deep biological) enthusiasm to explore the edges of our environment, and we scientists are just lucky to be able to hang on, almost parasitically, in the niche that provides. So we get to pay our mortgages, send our kids to good (expensive) schools, etc. Oh well, it takes all kinds, Evolution tries everything, "God is in the Chaos". And everyone has a share.... Wwheaton (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur. For me, being a forty-one year old American, our space program is deeply symbolic of my personal optimism and faith in humanity. Though I lack the academic background, I get the bigger picture and if as you say "God is in the Chaos" then his language is mathematics. Who knows- String theory may prove a path to the existence of the human soul, a part of ourselves extended in another dimension? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.242.147 (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

AIAA Conference paper

A later published AIAA paper (Aug 3, 2011) appears as

"http://www.g00gle._NO_SPAM_com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CEgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fntrs.nasa.gov%2Farchive%2Fnasa%2Fcasi.ntrs.nasa.gov%2F20110013138_2011013651.pdf&ei=WgdmUJrUGsSQiQLS74GoBg&usg=AFQjCNEdOH6ogNXhK66E82ZcpWzfb4iP4A&cad=rjt

E. M. Henderson and M. L. Holderman, "Technology Applications that Support Space Exploration", AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, 3 Aug 2011, San Diego, Calif.

Unfortunately this link is blocked by the WP spam filter. I have altered it in a obvious way to evade the problem temporarily. It downloads a .pdf of the article, which I have. Alternatively, Google(Nautilus-X NASA space} finds it on about the fifth hit as of this date.

It needs to be read, digested, and appropriate material integrated into the article, but I cannot do it now. Wwheaton (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Artifical Gravity Calculations

The values in the"Current Status" section seem to be off by a factor of 2. It may be that the calcs were done with the formula on the artificial gravity page, which use the assumption that there are pi radians in a circle. There are in fact 2*pi radians in a circle.

acceleration = omega*squared * radius a = (4 rpm)^2 * 9.1m a = (8 pi radians / minute)^2 * 9.1m a = (8 pi/60 radians/sec)^2 * 9.1m a = .17546 * 9.1 a = 1.596683 m/sec^2

1.596683 / 9.81 = .163g, while the value listed on the page is .08g

confirmed with calculator at http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gard0134 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This error is propagated through all the values in the table. Can someone please recheck my math, and I'll update the whole table when someone confirms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gard0134 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just rechecked your math and I believe I have found a problem. You seam to forget that in formula, there is R as radius, not diameter and this is why your numbers are twice as big. 9,1 meters is diameter, not radius ;).--62.141.9.130 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

More to the point of the article, these calculations are only marginally relevant to this design concept. These calculations apply to any centrifuge used to simulate gravity. It's trivial physics, and a table is quite un-necessary here. Further, they're in the "Status" section which makes little sense. There are no plans to fly a module like this on the ISS. This placement creates the misleading impression that the project is underway in some fashion. This section is not relevant to the article and should be deleted. Any objections? 2600:1000:B026:7174:6135:7EB4:F791:D589 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Current Status

As of late 2014, this section is severely out of date. There has been no official release for the programs cancellation, but everything has been *very* quiet since 2011. The article should at least be revised to make it clear it might have been the status in 2011, and is not current. All of the citations 2, 7, and 8 were broken. I Removed them and changed the title to status as of 2011.~~

You're right. One little detail, you refer here to the "program's cancellation". This was purely a design study, never a program. There was nothing to cancel. In fact, the status section is probably entirely irrelevant. Apart from attention from space enthusiasts, this design study was a closed book within weeks after its initial publication in January, 2011. It never went anywhere. 2600:1000:B026:7174:6135:7EB4:F791:D589 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Imaginary spacecraft

This article suffers from a problem that afflicts many articles about spacecraft design studies on Wikipedia. Nautilus-X was little more than a collection of artwork and ideas assembled by a very small group of engineers who happened to be working for NASA at the time they published their study in January, 2011. It's a plausibility analysis at best. The design had no official status within NASA whatsoever. In fact, apart from some updates in "style" (such as the deletion of nuclear power), it's not much different from a proposal, known as "Pilgrim Observer", published by a pair of NASA engineers in the early 1970s. The primary difference is that the "Pilgrim Observer" made it to hardware production -- as a plastic scale model. Nothing has come of the "Nautilus-X" project because it was little more than science fiction in the first place. The article fails to make that clear.

Step one on improving the article: convert all present tense references to past tense. Is there an active maintainer of this page? If not, I'll do that soon. Step two: add language that clarifies the unofficial and purely hypothetical status of the original concept. 2600:1000:B103:C463:7120:5C10:FF7A:F554 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Made some of the changes as proposed above. 70.192.34.164 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nautilus-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419194320/http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=26786 to http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=26786

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)