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

[HopDavid]

My whole set of recent responses were disagreeing with rockett's assertions.

False.

One of them was disagreeing with me. Here is a screenshot:

I have no idea what tangent you and neutrino are off on,

You jumped right in the middle of that tangent. See screenshot above.

Quick summary: Nuetrino said NASA was pathetic saying if Direct TV can launch communication sats in less than 5 years, why can't NASA launch lunar rovers in that time. I responded trying to point out lunar rovers weren't comparable to communication satellites. You disagreed with me.

nor do I care,

Obviously. If you cared you would have reread the thread.

since you seem to be imagining some disagreement that isn't there.

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

:?: :?

 

[MeteorWayne]

I have no idea what your comprehension problem is, but I was agreeing with you.

End of conversation.

 

[neutrino78x]

Again, a microprocessor is an extremely complicated device, requiring many people with master's degrees in engineering to design. Yet, Intel can design a new microprocessor in months. How long does it take NASA to design a new spacecraft?

A communications satellite is a device that goes in space. It is exposed to radiation and vacuum. How long does it take for a new DirecTV satellite to be designed and launched?

Like I said, here in Silicon Valley, there is a phrase often used to convey this idea: "elephants can't dance" (recently, the former CEO of IBM wrote a book called "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?"). Because the larger and more bureaucratic an organization is, the longer it takes it to do something. See the magazine "Fast Company".

--Brian

 

[rockett]

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

YOU GOT IT!!! I really don't know WHAT the quibbling about the time frame was! Overly optimistic TRUE, but instead of all that, my very simple point was, based on Oppotunity, we ALREADY HAVE the technology, to launch small, simple, rovers for long term prospecting (which the MER rovers were made for) missions for REE, water, or anything else! We simply need to launch them, the sooner the better!

 

[AsimovFan]

I think we should skip planets altogether and focus
on building ships out of asteroid materials.

Powered by solar sails you could lift asteroids into
groups and use nano scaffolding to link them together.

Eventually you could create an outer shell from Asteroid
materials.

Collect ice and use it to line the interior.

On the inside create a rotating habitat in the (sort of) shape
of a fat tire.

Make it big enough to generate about 1/3 earth gravity.

Start growing food and possibly animals.

Light and all energy can be created by solar energy.

 

[AsimovFan]

Trying to colonize planets and moons is far too dangerous.

Better yet create a mega structure in space like a ring, not as
big as ringworld standards to start with.

We would be much safer this way, also being able to fairly
easily customize our own environment.

While also being safe from the hazards of space, and the usual
planetary hazards.

Getting into space is easier than the establishment wants you to believe.

Space elevators, rotovators, tethers and solar wings are some alternative ways.

 

[brandbll]

Trying to colonize planets and moons is far too dangerous.

Better yet create a mega structure in space like a ring, not as
big as ringworld standards to start with.

We would be much safer this way, also being able to fairly
easily customize our own environment.

While also being safe from the hazards of space, and the usual
planetary hazards.

Getting into space is easier than the establishment wants you to believe.

Space elevators, rotovators, tethers and solar wings are some alternative ways.

Building a giant ring in space is safer than being on a relatively geologically inactive body like Mars or the Moon? And just how does that make you safe from the hazards of space? How can you be safe from the hazards of space when your IN space?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Any type of space ring project on the scale you're talking about will require well over a trillion dollars, and we haven't even visited an asteroid yet with a manned ship. Do you have any idea the scale of the project you are talking about here? Terraforming Mars would be far easier and much less costly.

 

[rockett]

Let's take the easy way out and build hyperdrive. THAT will probably happen before we can move things around like pool balls to our liking on that large a scale. THEN solar sails don't matter, nor does staying in this solar system, gravity wells, or anything else that are big problems these days. If I was gonna spend THAT kind of money, I'd sink in FTL drive! :lol:

 

[rockett]

Any type of space ring project on the scale you're talking about will require well over a trillion dollars, and we haven't even visited an asteroid yet with a manned ship.

Frankly, even a trillion dollars is optimistic. Constructing massive space habitats is out of the question until we can manage to just survive out there long term (which we can't at present). Look at how frequently the ISS requires resupply...

 

[csmyth3025]

The poll on this topic indicates that 72% favor a Moon first approach and the remaining 28% is about evenly divided between Mars and asteroids. Realistically, I don't think anyone is comptemplating a full scale space contruction project any time soon. Especially not one such as has been suggested.

I suspect that small-scale habitats similar to Bigelow's will be the norm for at least another ten years (probably twenty). Hopefully we'll have enough space infrastructure in place by that time to start processing materials from space for use in space. Whether those materials come from asteroids or from the Moon is a decision that's more likely to come from the private sector than from a government agency (I hope).

I'd be disappointed if governments were still the dominant players in space utilization twenty years from now.

Chris

 

[rockett]

The poll on this topic indicates that 72% favor a Moon first approach and the remaining 28% is about evenly divided between Mars and asteroids. Realistically, I don't think anyone is comptemplating a full scale space contruction project any time soon. Especially not one such as has been suggested.

I suspect that small-scale habitats similar to Bigelow's will be the norm for at least another ten years (probably twenty). Hopefully we'll have enough space infrastructure in place by that time to start processing materials from space for use in space. Whether those materials come from asteroids or from the Moon is a decision that's more likely to come from the private sector than from a government agency (I hope).

I'd be disappointed if governments were still the dominant players in space utilization twenty years from now.

Chris

I don't expect that we will be building any grandios construction projects anytime soon, we simply don't have the ability to send large crews to do them, or the ability to travel that far consistantly yet.

It would be nice if commercial enterprises become the dominant players, however, then we will have to deal with Accountants running the show. Not sure if we wouldn't be better off with Congress.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Acountants don't actually run private businesses, it just seems like they do. A good business leader will leverage his assets, engineers, business managers and acountants to get the result he is looking for. His actual commands to the accountants is "Find a way to make it pay" which is similar to the command to the engineers "Find a way to make it work" and then there is the final item the command to his business managers of "Make the solution found by the accountants and engineeres be the same." This last item is the most crucial, if the solution can't be both an engineering one and accounting one the project will not work!

 

[scottb50]

Acountants don't actually run private businesses, it just seems like they do. A good business leader will leverage his assets, engineers, business managers and acountants to get the result he is looking for. His actual commands to the accountants is "Find a way to make it pay" which is similar to the command to the engineers "Find a way to make it work" and then there is the final item the command to his business managers of "Make the solution found by the accountants and engineeres be the same." This last item is the most crucial, if the solution can't be both an engineering one and accounting one the project will not work!

Too bad we don't have the Bill Lear's, Wright Brothers and Henry Fords we used to. Has our evolution as humans gone retrograde in the last 30 years?

Falcon and Tesla could have been done 30 years ago, entertainment is the driving thing today, DVD, Blue Ray, 3-D, more elaborate phones catch all the attention and revenue now.

 

[vulture4]

The Wright Brothers left for France because the US would not support their work. That's why NACA (now NASA) was created, in 1915. To support private industry. Not the other way around. It's the Moon Race that was the anomaly. As to the goals, they are all equivalent unsustainable space spectaculars with no practical benefits that justify their cost. The correct answer is "none of the above".

 

[rockett]

The Wright Brothers left for France because the US would not support their work. That's why NACA (now NASA) was created, in 1915. To support private industry. Not the other way around. It's the Moon Race that was the anomaly. As to the goals, they are all equivalent unsustainable space spectaculars with no practical benefits that justify their cost. The correct answer is "none of the above".

So, your answer is to sit on our hands, since no one can afford it? While a half dozen other countires are pursuing lunar initiatives?

 

[vulture4]

The Wright Brothers left for France because the US would not support their work. That's why NACA (now NASA) was created, in 1915. To support private industry. Not the other way around. It's the Moon Race that was the anomaly. As to the goals, they are all equivalent unsustainable space spectaculars with no practical benefits that justify their cost. The correct answer is "none of the above".

So, your answer is to sit on our hands, since no one can afford it? While a half dozen other countires are pursuing lunar initiatives?

No, my answer is to develop new technology that will actually reduce the cost of human spaceflight sufficiently to make it practical. This requires a fully reusable launch system. Sending a few people to the moon on a giant throw-away rocket is much too expensive to be practical. That's why Nixon canceled Apollo in 1974. Certainly none of the nations planning "lunar initiatives" is planning to re-enact Apollo. They are sending robotic spacecraft, not to prove they are the first, but to prove they are in the first rank of industrial nations.

 

[csmyth3025]

...No, my answer is to develop new technology that will actually reduce the cost of human spaceflight sufficiently to make it practical. This requires a fully reusable launch system. Sending a few people to the moon on a giant throw-away rocket is much too expensive to be practical...

I have to agree that reducing the cost of sending men and materials to LEO is the first step - and should be the highest priority - towards making large scale activities in space practical. Utilization of the resources of the Moon, Mars or asteroids (take your pick) cannot begin until we've first solved this problem.

Chris

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

...No, my answer is to develop new technology that will actually reduce the cost of human spaceflight sufficiently to make it practical. This requires a fully reusable launch system. Sending a few people to the moon on a giant throw-away rocket is much too expensive to be practical...

I have to agree that reducing the cost of sending men and materials to LEO is the first step - and should be the highest priority - towards making large scale activities in space practical. Utilization of the resources of the Moon, Mars or asteroids (take your pick) cannot begin until we've first solved this problem.

Chris

The only thing that will actually reduce cost to LEO is commercial competition. The current global first tier competitors are: Space X (Falcon 9), Khrunichev (Proton), TsSKB-Progress (Soyuz), EADS Astrium (Ariane 5), and Lockheed-Martin (Atlas V).

To keep customers coming in these manufacturers have to innovate to reduce costs to continue to compete. Space X is the current wildcard of this group with potential to be the front runner. Another wildcard manufacturer with a new technology innovation could change the equation for what price makes a viable launch vehicle business. A viable launch vehicle business is a combination of a low enough price to get sufficient customers to produce enough economy of scale to make a profit. If a new wildcard manufacturer enters the competition then either the current providers go out of business or are under sufficient pressure to further innovate by spending money for new development to become competitive again to stay in business. This is what drives the electronics free market, specifically the computer/Internet market on such a high paced development and innovation that continually offers more for less price. If you don’t spend money to develop new, better and cheaper products you will go out of business!

This happened to IBM, who had lots of assets and talent but was no longer competitive. They failed to keep up to the changing IT market. By refocusing the talent towards being an Internet complete business solution provider they recaptured the front runner position that business went to for their IT business solutions. This allowed IBM to leverage and sell more hardware and software increasing their economy of scale which produced more profit. This business innovation reduced corporations’ costs in setting up Internet business solutions. An Innovation doesn’t have to be a new technology that will change the equation it could be something as simple as to the way the existing technology is applied.

Space X is doing this, which is why they are so successful. By keeping development costs low using developed technologies but applying it where it makes business sense and focusing on the applications of technology as to how it effects operation and product costs they have become a strong competitor in the launch provider market. One innovation of using the right technology is the tanks. It combines the technology of a rigid structure and pressurized balloon tank technologies. Purely rigid tanks are heavy. Purely pressurized balloon tanks are difficult to handle in ground processing. Each has offsetting positive and negative cost savings. Space X designed a tank that uses both technologies to come up with a very light weight rigid tank that is pressurized to handle the launch loads but is still rigid enough for easy ground handling unpressurized. This is an innovation of two very old technologies which when combined solved two problems that kept the launch costs lower. The Falcon 9 is riddled with little innovations like this that when combined makes a huge cost impact.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I'm curious about what the astronauts will have to do to land on the asteroid on the mission. I'm assuming they will use a jetpack to land on the surface, then use some sort of ski pole tool to keep themselves anchored to the surface. Or, the Orion capsule can land on the asteroid and the astronauts can drift out from it.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I'm curious about what the astronauts will have to do to land on the asteroid on the mission. I'm assuming they will use a jetpack to land on the surface, then use some sort of ski pole tool to keep themselves anchored to the surface. Or, the Orion capsule can land on the asteroid and the astronauts can drift out from it.

Some that depends on how big the asteroid is. The bigger the easier to “walk on”. A small asteroid about the best you could is sort of drift next to it. Any movement would propel you away from the asteroid permanently. In any case the current MMUs would work just fine. If you need more lift to get off the surface just jump.

 

[rockett]

Some that depends on how big the asteroid is. The bigger the easier to “walk on”. A small asteroid about the best you could is sort of drift next to it. Any movement would propel you away from the asteroid permanently. In any case the current MMUs would work just fine. If you need more lift to get off the surface just jump.

You are correct. I really doubt that you would be able to "land" an any asteroid in the classical sense, only being able to make contact with it, at most. We only have a very limited selection of NEAs as candidates for a near term mission, and all are quite small:

"The earliest NASA could expect to reach an asteroid would be in 2020, when ground-based telescopes are able to spot the return of a 197-foot (60-meter) rock known as 2009 OS5"

"A launch opportunity to visit a different asteroid would arise Sept. 19, 2025, with astronauts aiming for another 64-foot space rock, called 1999 AO10."

"A later effort could target the 328-foot (100-meter) object called 2003 SM84 in 2045"

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-space-asteroid-mission-near-earth-100831.html

Here are some numbers for you as comparisons:

Earth
Mean radius 6,371.0 km
Equatorial surface gravity 0.99732 g
Escape velocity 11.186 km/s

Moon
Mean radius 1,737.10 km
Equatorial surface gravity 1.622 m/s2 (0.165 4 g)
Escape velocity 2.38 km/s

Ceres (dwarf planet asteroid main belt)
Equatorial radius 487.3 ± 1.8 km
Equatorial surface gravity 0.27 m/s2 0.028 g
Escape velocity 0.51 km/s

Large NEO examples:

2062 Aten
Dimensions 0.9 km
Equatorial surface gravity 0.000 25 m/s²
Escape velocity 0.000 48 km/s

1862 Apollo
Dimensions 1.7 km
Equatorial surface gravity 0.0005? m/s²
Escape velocity 0.0009? km/s

1221 Amor
Dimensions 1.5? km
Equatorial surface gravity 0.000 42 m/s²
Escape velocity 0.000 79 km/s

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Couldn't the Oron capsule get very close to the asteroid, then shoot some tethers out to anchor to it? That would basically be a landing. The astronauts could use some sort of pole to keep themselves anchored to the surface, and use the MMU/SAFER in case they lose their grip.

 

[neutrino78x]

So, your answer is to sit on our hands, since no one can afford it? While a half dozen other countires are pursuing lunar initiatives?

Bigelow Aerospace employees will welcome those other countries when they arrive, having already set up the Bigelow Hotel on the Moon.

--Brian

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

There is one thing I just thought of about small 100 m or less asteroids and that is unintentional deltaV changes to the asteroid orbit. A .01m/s change could mean in a couple of years the difference between a miss of the earth by 100,000 km or a direct hit. I think that the worst thing you could do would be to tether a spacecraft to a small asteroid.