Moon, Mars, or Asteroid? Which is the best goal?

[EarthlingX]

Asteroid mission, because it opens almost whole inner Solar system. Moon is open for business, doesn't need NASA competition, similar to LEO.
When USAF decides they want a base on the Moon, they'll just put it there, no big talks.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I agree with woody. A moon base should still be our top priority. Constellation was a poor program but it's goal was fine. An asteroid mission can be a secondary objective after we've finished a moon base.

 

[rockett]

Why not set-up facilities on the moon? We could have prospecting rovers there in less than a year. The tech is nothing new. Just recycle plans for Spirit and Opportunity, tweak a little, and launch.

uhh, no we couldn't, since there are no such rovers designed, much less built or paid for, or the lauches manifested.

No, there isn't currently Wayne. My point was, that if we decided to do it, and we used the plans for Spirit and Opportunity (which had instrumentatation specifically for mineral analysis), construction to launch could be accelerated to within a year. After all they are proven designs that lasted 25X their original planned mission lifetimes. Tweaking of the software and instumentation specifically for REE could easily be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_rover
Fixed science instruments include

Panoramic Camera (Pancam) - examines the texture, color, mineralogy, and structure of the local terrain.
Navigation Camera (Navcam) - monochrome with a higher field of view but lower resolution, for navigation and driving.
Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES) - identifies promising rocks and soils for closer examination, and determines the processes that formed them.
The rover arm holds the following instruments

Mössbauer spectrometer (MB) MIMOS II - used for close-up investigations of the mineralogy of iron-bearing rocks and soils.
Alpha particle X-ray spectrometer (APXS) - close-up analysis of the abundances of elements that make up rocks and soils.
Magnets - for collecting magnetic dust particles
Microscopic Imager (MI) - obtains close-up, high-resolution images of rocks and soils.
Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) - exposes fresh material for examination by instruments on-board.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

In order to get a Spirit rover to the Lunar surface you would need a Lunar lander not a Mars Lander. No atmosphere.

 

[Couerl]

The Chinese have been talking about stopping exports on rare earths for over a year now , that's when I researched it looking for a way to capitalize on it in the stock market but the deeper I got the more I knew it would come to this before anything got done on our end . We were happy to let china deal with the waste for as long as we could but once they cut us off too prices are gonna skyrocket on things that use rare earths . Buy your hard drives now while prices are low , of course that will do one good thing for the planet , recycling will become far more profitable .

Wasn't there just some big hullabaloo about Afghanistan having all sorts of unexploited precious metals?

How convenient!!! :lol:

 

[rockett]

In order to get a Spirit rover to the Lunar surface you would need a Lunar lander not a Mars Lander. No atmosphere.

I don't question that, we have done that part before, though, both manned and unmanned. I think some sort of rover lander could be put together relatively quickly. Why not farm out that part to the Google X-Prize competitors? Or at least involve them in the design. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ It would be a great incentive!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Why not set-up facilities on the moon? We could have prospecting rovers there in less than a year. The tech is nothing new. Just recycle plans for Spirit and Opportunity, tweak a little, and launch.

uhh, no we couldn't, since there are no such rovers designed, much less built or paid for, or the lauches manifested.

No, there isn't currently Wayne. My point was, that if we decided to do it, and we used the plans for Spirit and Opportunity (which had instrumentatation specifically for mineral analysis), construction to launch could be accelerated to within a year.

Surely you jest. Within a year??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No designs exist, no funding exists, no hardware exists, no software exists, no launch vehicle slot exists... etc,etc,etc.

So many posters here are far removed from reality

 

[rockett]

Surely you jest. Within a year??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No designs exist, no funding exists, no hardware exists, no software exists, no launch vehicle slot exists... etc,etc,etc.

So many posters here are far removed from reality

Not all that far fetched, Wayne. The decision to take advantage to launch in 2003 for a 2004 landing was made in 2001. Considering the things you mentioned above, say the clock started ticking at that time. That could easily eat up a year (at least) so that leaves you about 2 years for constructing two rovers. Soooo that means provided ALL the above conditions were met, and working from the same plans, actual construction time at JPL could probably be compressed to a year, two at most. Add that to a launch window of every two weeks.

Seems quite do-able if we don't insist on tacking more stuff on.

Besides, despite the Administration's, NASA's, and Congress's best efforts, I'm still an optimist...

 

[neutrino78x]

Surely you jest. Within a year??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No designs exist, no funding exists, no hardware exists, no software exists, no launch vehicle slot exists... etc,etc,etc.

Which is quite pathetic, is it not? (I'm saying NASA is pathetic, not MeteorWayne.)

How long does it take DirectTV to design and launch a new satellite? 5 years? I think not.

How long does it take Intel to design and take to market a new microprocessor? 5 years? Guess again.

This is why we need to accelerate the commercial exploitation of space. That's how you get a space program that is not subject to politics. Government owned and operated vehicles will always be subject to being deleted by the next President. SpaceX, et al., will not.

--Brian

 

[csmyth3025]

In my mind "best goal" means the one that's most likely to produce the greatest benefit as a next step from where we are now (LEO). For this reason I dismiss a Mars mission as being a "Flag and Footprints" effort. We may be able to get there, but the trip won't help build the space infrastructure we need to stay there and, more importantly, to have regular commerce between us and Mars.

The question of whether to exploit the resources of asteroids needs to be more narrowly defined. I think those who are proposing to do so are thinking of NEA's that can be accessed from LEO with relatively modest delta-v orbital transitions. The ideas I've seen so far suggest that this sort of asteroid mining is not likely to be done entirely by remotely operated robotics (operated from Earth like the Mars rovers) - there are just too many on-the-spot judgements involved. There seems to be two schools of thought on this. One is to send a crew (at the very least, two astronauts) beyond the protection of the Van Allen belts for months at a time along with all the supplies and mining equipment they'll need. That's a lot of stuff to launch from Earth.

Alternately, some seem to think that diverting a NEA so that it takes an Earth-centered orbit in the general vicinity of the ISS is the best way to go. The thinking here is apparently that an expanded and upgraded ISS can serve as a base for the asteroid miners and a processing facility for the materials they obtain from the asteroid. This also involves launching a lot of stuff from Earth to upgrade the ISS and adds the complication of diverting a NEA to LEO. A real mission profile would have to be drawn up before I could see how this scenario would in any way be practical. Even if compelling advantages were attributed to this approach, I don't think diverting a NEA towards the Earth is going to be a very popular idea with the general population. As it stands, people dont trust our ability to send even a small nuclear reactor into orbit or to the outer regions of the solar system.

Then there's the Moon. It'll take a lot of launches to get enough usable stuff up there. Probably no more than any other scheme, though. There seems to be water ice at the poles (drinking water, breathing oxygen, H2 & O2 for fuel) and plenty of regolith for shielding and mining. If a polar location is chosen there may be nearly continuous sunlight available for properly placed solar panels. It has 1/6 Earth's gravity, which might help to mitigate the effects that pure zero-g space living produces (we dont know yet). Getting there and getting back can be done in a matter of a few days each way.

All things considered, the Moon sounds like it would be a good place to start learning how to extract resources in space.

Chris

 

[EarthlingX]

Diverting NEOs in the LEO is not so clever idea IMHO, for the reasons you stated.

As to how to get resources from NEOs, there are plenty of ideas, but currently hardly any more than nano particles from them - it needs more research, precursor/prospector missions, telescopes, etc.

Processing of space resources should be done in space, not on Earth, Moon, or in any other gravity well, to avoid extra unnecessary costs for landing all the needed gear. Once such a facility exists, it can be moved where ever is most practical, similar to ore processing barges/platforms.

Since the Moons seems to be so interesting to general public, it can very likely be funded with private money, and actually it is, with efforts such as Google Lunar X Prize.

Perhaps one of the big Hollywood firms invests in a lunar mission, instead of a new big (sci)-fi movie ?

 

[csmyth3025]

...Processing of space resources should be done in space, not on Earth, Moon, or in any other gravity well, to avoid extra unnecessary costs for landing all the needed gear. Once such a facility exists, it can be moved where ever is most practical, similar to ore processing barges/platforms.

I guess the issue is whether we can launch all the pieces needed for asteroid mining from Earth. I don't consider the Moon a final destination by any means. I'm wondering if we need to use it to build up the near Earth space infrastructure so that we can then build the more far ranging types of spacecraft that can do mining, ore transportation, processing, and fabrication.

If there is, in fact, accessible water ice and, possibly, extractable water from lunar regolith that can be used for life support and fuel, then I don't see the Moon's gravity well as a big impediment. With no atmosphere and 1/6 g, getting off the Moon shouldn't be terribly difficult provided the fuel needed can be generated on the Moon. In the future some variation of a rail gun launch system might be employed.

I agree, though, that launching things that are going to be used in space - especially from a planetary gravity well - is just a stop-gap measure until we have the necessary space infrastructure in place.

Chris

 

[EarthlingX]

...Processing of space resources should be done in space, not on Earth, Moon, or in any other gravity well, to avoid extra unnecessary costs for landing all the needed gear. Once such a facility exists, it can be moved where ever is most practical, similar to ore processing barges/platforms.

I guess the issue is whether we can launch all the pieces needed for asteroid mining from Earth. I don't consider the Moon a final destination by any means. I'm wondering if we need to use it to build up the near Earth space infrastructure so that we can then build the more far ranging types of spacecraft that can do mining, ore transportation, processing, and fabrication.

Those pieces will have to be launched from the Earth for lunar base too, except there they will have to land too. Lunar base also adds landing/launch to resupply lines.

If there is, in fact, accessible water ice and, possibly, extractable water from lunar regolith that can be used for life support and fuel, then I don't see the Moon's gravity well as a big impediment. With no atmosphere and 1/6 g, getting off the Moon shouldn't be terribly difficult provided the fuel needed can be generated on the Moon. In the future some variation of a rail gun launch system might be employed.

Water ice and other minerals from the birth of the Solar system are in asteroids too, mostly undeferentiated, but currently there is a serious lack of data, since the smaller ones, which might be candidates for moving around, are only just began being discovered.

This can be solved by mass-producing prospector robots, since they would all have the same requirements. Governments (space agencies) should work on standards, to enable industry cooperation, and technologies which doesn't have immediate ROI but are needed for expansion in space. Governments have also other tools to stimulate growth of industries, like taxes, grants, competitions, etc.

I agree, though, that launching things that are going to be used in space - especially from a planetary gravity well - is just a stop-gap measure until we have the necessary space infrastructure in place.

Chris

Point is to start with infrastructure in space, not down and then up again from the Moon.

 

[EarthlingX]

http://www.nasa.gov : NASA Thruster Test Aids Future Robotic Lander's Ability to Land Safely

10.07.10


During tests of the five-pound thruster, the Divert Attitude Control System thruster fired under vacuum conditions to simulate operation in a space environment. The tests mimicked the lander mission profile and operation scenarios. Image Credit: NASA/MSFC

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., collaborated with NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, N.M., and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, Calif., to successfully complete a series of thruster tests at the White Sands test facility. The test will aid in maneuvering and landing the next generation of robotic lunar landers that could be used to explore the moon's surface and other airless celestial bodies.

The Robotic Lunar Lander Development Project at the Marshall Center performed a series of hot-fire tests on two high thrust-to-weight thrusters – a 100-pound-class for lunar descent and a 5-pound-class for attitude control. The team used a lunar mission profile during the test of the miniaturized thrusters to assess the capability of these thruster technologies for possible use on future NASA spacecraft.

The test program fully accomplished its objectives, including evaluation of combustion stability, engine efficiency, and the ability of the thruster to perform the mission profile and a long-duration, steady-state burn at full power. The test results will allow the Robotic Lander Project to move forward with robotic lander designs using advanced propulsion technology.

The test articles are part of the Divert Attitude Control System, or DACS, developed by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency of the Department of Defense. The control system provides two kinds of propulsion -- one for control and the other for maneuvering. The Attitude Control System thrusters provide roll, pitch and yaw control. These small thruster types were chosen to meet the golf-cart-size lander's requirement for light-weight, compact propulsion components to aid in reducing overall spacecraft mass and mission cost by leveraging an existing government resource.

"The Missile Defense Agency heritage thrusters were originally used for short-duration flights and had not been qualified for space missions, so our engineers tested them to assess their capability for long-duration burns and to evaluate their performance and combustion behavior," said Monica Hammond, lander propulsion task manager for the Robotic Lunar Lander Development Project at the Marshall Center. "The thrusters are a first step in reducing propulsion technology risks for a lander mission. The results will be instrumental in developing future plans associated with the lander's propulsion system design."

During tests of the 100-pound thruster, the Divert Attitude Control System thruster fired under vacuum conditions to simulate operation in a space environment. The tests mimicked the lander mission profile and operation scenarios. The test included several trajectory correction maneuvers during the cruise phase; nutation control burns to maintain spacecraft orientation; thruster vector correction during the solid motor braking burn; and a terminal descent burn on approach to the lunar surface.

The objective for the 5-pound-class thruster test was similar to the 100-pound thruster test with an additional emphasis on the thruster heating assessment due to the long-duration mission profile and operation with MMH/MON-25 -- monomethylhydrazine (MMH) fuel and a nitrogen tetroxide (75 percent)/nitrogen oxide (25 percent) (MON-25) oxidizer.

A standard propellant system for spacecraft is the MMH/MON-3 propellant system -- containing 3 percent nitric oxide. An alternate propellant system, MMH/MON-25, contains 25 percent nitric oxide. With its chemical composition, it has a much lower freezing point than MON-3, making it an attractive alternative for spacecraft with its thermal benefits and resulting savings in heater power. Because the MMH/MON-25 propellant system has never been used in space, these tests allowed engineers to benchmark the test against the MMH/MON-3 propellant system.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNf-9OjpAxA[/youtube]

SpaceFellowship | October 08, 2010

"The lower freezing point could save considerable heater power for the spacecraft and increase thermal margin for the entire propulsion system," said Huu Trinh, lead propulsion engineer for the Robotic Lunar Lander Development Project at the Marshall Center. "These tests showed stable combustion in all scenarios and favorable temperature results."

The Robotic Lunar Lander Development Project is a partnership between the Marshall Center and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory located in Laurel, Md.

For more photos and video of the test, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/roboticlander


Photos
Video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q42dF8LhkU[/youtube]

NASAMarshallTV | November 18, 2009

During recent tests at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., the lander test article was suspended up 10.5 feet from the landing pad. After being released from its hoist, the lander simultaneously received a command to activate its onboard thrusters to carry it to a controlled landing using a preprogrammed descent profile. These tests demonstrate the test article's capability to perform autonomous descent, and soon will be used to checkout landing control algorithms for the next generation of lander missions. Landing on Earth is a difficult task since engineers have to take into account the Earths gravity is six times the gravity a vehicle will experience on the moon. The team at Marshall is designing and building the next generation of robotic landers that will be capable of carrying a broad range of science payloads and devices that could perform a variety of investigations, including understanding the moon's deep interior and searching for the existence lunar ice and water at the poles.

 

[HopDavid]

Processing of space resources should be done in space, not on Earth, Moon, or in any other gravity well, to avoid extra unnecessary costs for landing all the needed gear.

Processing of space resources should be done in earth's neighborhood, to avoid the extra unnecessary costs of waiting years to decades for launch windows, trip times of months to years, and delta V expense of leaving earth's orbit about the sun and matching velocities with another orbit about the sun.

Once such a facility exists, it can be moved where ever is most practical, similar to ore processing barges/platforms.

This vague assertion would be more credible if you provided some specifics. You could give a hypothetical departure point, a hypothetical arrival point, figure the delta V and how much propellent you'd need.

Moving stuff about the solar system can be quite difficult.

 

[HopDavid]

Surely you jest. Within a year??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No designs exist, no funding exists, no hardware exists, no software exists, no launch vehicle slot exists... etc,etc,etc.

Which is quite pathetic, is it not? (I'm saying NASA is pathetic, not MeteorWayne.)

How long does it take DirectTV to design and launch a new satellite? 5 years? I think not.

How long does it take Intel to design and take to market a new microprocessor? 5 years? Guess again.

Michelangelo is quite pathetic, is he not? He took 4 years to paint the Sistine Chapel.

How long did it take Keith Haring to whip out a piece of street art? 4 years? I think not.

How long does it take taggers to paint a railroad car? 4 years? Guess again.

 

[MeteorWayne]

A piece of space art or a tagger is not a radiation and thermally hardened piece of physical hardware, computer hardware, and software that will be in space (i.e. unrepairable) for months to years before completing it's mission (which also hasn't been designed yet).

 

[HopDavid]

A piece of space art or a tagger is not a radiation and thermally hardened piece of physical hardware, computer hardware, and software that will be in space (i.e. unrepairable) for months to years before completing it's mission (which also hasn't been designed yet).

Nuetrino was condemning NASA for being unable to get a rover on the moon within a few years, comparing the task to launching a communications satellite or developing a new chip.

My point was landing a rover on the moon isn't comparable to launching a communication satellite or developing a new chip.

So then you're in agreement with Neutrino's condemnation of NASA? You believe NASA should be able to do it with comparable time and effort as Direct TV launching a communication satellite?

My respect for your opinion has just fallen.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Actually, it was rockett, and he/she specifically said this:

"Why not set-up facilities on the moon? We could have prospecting rovers there in less than a year. The tech is nothing new. Just recycle plans for Spirit and Opportunity, tweak a little, and launch."

 

[MeteorWayne]

A piece of space art or a tagger is not a radiation and thermally hardened piece of physical hardware, computer hardware, and software that will be in space (i.e. unrepairable) for months to years before completing it's mission (which also hasn't been designed yet).

Nuetrino was condemning NASA for being unable to get a rover on the moon within a few years, comparing the task to launching a communications satellite or developing a new chip.

My point was landing a rover on the moon isn't comparable to launching a communication satellite or developing a new chip.

That's what I said.

So then you're in agreement with Neutrino's condemnation of NASA? You believe NASA should be able to do it with comparable time and effort as Direct TV launching a communication satellite?

My respect for your opinion has just fallen.

I never said any such thing. In fact, I disagreed with Neutrino's statement, which is what I said.

Perhaps you should read a little more closely who said what. My respect for your reading ability has just fallen

 

[HopDavid]

My point was landing a rover on the moon isn't comparable to launching a communication satellite or developing a new chip.

That's what I said.

I said comparing a lunar rover to a communications satellite is like comparing the Michelangelo's Sistine chapel to one of Keith Haring's pieces.

Did you agree with this? No, you did not. This is what you wrote: "A piece of space art or a tagger is not a radiation and thermally hardened piece of physical hardware, computer hardware, and software that will be in space (i.e. unrepairable) for months to years before completing it's mission (which also hasn't been designed yet)."

So are you trying to shoot down what I said or not?

By the way, Keith Haring's stuff isn't space art.

 

[HopDavid]

Actually, it was rockett, and he/she specifically said this:

"Why not set-up facilities on the moon? We could have prospecting rovers there in less than a year. The tech is nothing new. Just recycle plans for Spirit and Opportunity, tweak a little, and launch."

No, it wasn't Rockett condemning NASA. Actually it was Nuetrino who specifically said this:

"Which is quite pathetic, is it not? (I'm saying NASA is pathetic, not MeteorWayne.)
How long does it take DirectTV to design and launch a new satellite? 5 years? I think not.
How long does it take Intel to design and take to market a new microprocessor? 5 years? Guess again."

Why don't you stop watching the ball game and read the threads you're responding to?

 

[MeteorWayne]

I was agreeing with you. Sheesh!!!

My whole set of recent responses were disagreeing with rockett's assertions. I have no idea what tangent you and neutrino are off on, nor do I care, since you seem to be imagining some disagreement that isn't there.

I'm not watching a game. What's your excuse? :?: :?

 

[rockett]

I was agreeing with you. Sheesh!!!

My whole set of recent responses were disagreeing with rockett's assertions. I have no idea what tangent you and neutrino are off on, nor do I care, since you seem to be imagining some disagreement that isn't there.

I'm not watching a game. What's your excuse? :?: :?

hehehe :lol:
It's he, by the way, Wayne.
I never expected my sunny optimism would stir up sooooo much discussion!!!!!!

In this case, I do have to side with the other optimists however. I will concede that a year might have been over the top, but a knock off of the Opportunity rover :idea: would still be a good shortcut to a lunar prospecting rover...

 

[csmyth3025]

...I will concede that a year might have been over the top, but a knock off of the Opportunity rover :idea: would still be a good shortcut to a lunar prospecting rover...

I think a lunar prospector in the (shaded) polar regions would be a good idea. The remote sensing data we have seems to indicate that there's water ice on or near the surface there. I think that warrants a closer look - the sooner the better. At best I think we're still looking at a couple of years lead time, though.

It's too bad we didn't detect about 800 billion barrels of light sweet crude oil in those craters - then maybe we could convince BP to move their oil rigs from the Gulf to the Moon.

Chris