Obama's asteroid goal: tougher, riskier than moon

[scottb50]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Landing a man on the moon was a towering achievement. Now the president has given NASA an even harder job, one with a certain Hollywood quality: sending astronauts to an asteroid, a giant speeding rock, just 15 years from now....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_ ... a_asteroid

Even though an asteroid would be farther than the moon, the voyage would use less fuel and be cheaper because an asteroid has no gravity. The rocket that carries the astronauts home would not have to expend fuel to escape the asteroid's pull.

On the other hand, because of the lack of gravity, a spaceship could not safely land on an asteroid; it would bounce off the surface. Instead, it would have to hover next to the asteroid, and the astronauts would have to spacewalk down to the ground, Yeomans said.

Once there, they would need some combination of jet packs, spikes or nets to enable them to walk without skittering off the asteroid and floating away, he said.

"You would need some way to hold yourself down," Yeomans said. "You'd launch yourself into space every time you took a step."

Who writes this stuff? An asteroid, or even an atom has gravity, how much depends on it's mass. Landings have already been demonstrated on two different asteroids. True it might not be much gravity and if very small you could jump into an orbit or maybe reach escape velocity, but the blanket statement there is a lack of gravity is ridiculous.

 

[vladdrac]

FOX has been pissing all over the President for the Asteroid business. Maybe the boys and girls at FOX can't understand why its more important to be able to control an asteroid at the moment. If one hits us the economy is going to get really really really bad. If I survive and find one of the FOX girls in the street........ :lol:

 

[mr_mark]

A interesting idea would be to have a base on an asteroid with a long stable orbit around the sun. We could travel much farther than any spaceship would take us and learn more about it's interior composition.

 

[vladdrac]

By the by, wouldn't this voyage to an asteroid require building a ship for which a trip to the moon would be a milk run?.

 

[centsworth_II]

By the by, wouldn't this voyage to an asteroid require building a ship for which a trip to the moon would be a milk run?.

The point is not to waste time and money on Moon landers.

 

[SpeedRunner]

The asteroid mission has really caught my interest. It does indeed seem to be something very hard to do. One question is, how would they be able to get on the right trajectory and speed to meet up with an asteroid, and then be able to reverse course back to Earth? That in itself seems very challenging.

 

[BrianBoru]

Yup, lander development will be a total wast of time. Absolute no vision of landing on another planet justifies that conclusion.

 

[pathfinder_01]

Yup, lander development will be a total wast of time. Absolute no vision of landing on another planet justifies that conclusion.

The trouble is a lander is something that comes second to the ability to get there and stay there. Being able to spend months in deep space is more impresive than being able to land people for a mere two weeks. In addition a lander could be developed latter.

 

[BrianBoru]

Yup, lander development will be a total wast of time. Absolute no vision of landing on another planet justifies that conclusion.

The trouble is a lander is something that comes second to the ability to get there and stay there. Being able to spend months in deep space is more impresive than being able to land people for a mere two weeks. In addition a lander could be developed latter.

I was thinking in my head, and not clarifying in my post.
I was thinking about the -no-plan, of orbiting Mars in the 2030's. You go all that way, risking the lives of astronauts, to what? Re-enact Apollo 8, only after their 10 or so orbits, have them on a 3 - 6 month return, with what being the mission?
Sending basically chimps - they are not much more than spam in a can, because they won't even have the ability to land - and learning what exactly? There is absolutely no point whatsoever to sending humans on what amounts to Christopher Columbus or Leif Erikson sailing parallel to the North American coastline, looking at it in his spyglass, then turning around and going home.
As far as a lander being developed later, later than what? Another 10 - 20 years after the first human orbit of Mars?
I think that is an epic, ill conceived, visionless and bankrupt non-plan, as is possible to offer after a year-long study.
It's beyond pathetic. Just my point of view about this current American administration's retching.
Also I add, that this malaise spans the last quarter century of the American civilian space agency, with equally culpable administrations and congresses.

 

[Valcan]

Hmm i like the idea of rondevoing with the asteroid doing experiments and such. Maybe we could leave a little outpost there to send back info and to to continue some longterm projects.

 

[JonClarke]

I was thinking about the -no-plan, of orbiting Mars in the 2030's.

My preference is for landing irectly on Mars too, but orbital (and even flyby) precursor missions are a viable option,

You are aware that there have been Mars orbital mission plans going back more than 40 years?

You go all that way, risking the lives of astronauts, to what? Re-enact Apollo 8, only after their 10 or so orbits, have them on a 3 - 6 month return, with what being the mission?

Who says you would only do 10 orbits? Orbital dynamics means that you would need to send at least obne month at Mars before returning, possibly as many as 18.

Sending basically chimps - they are not much more than spam in a can, because they won't even have the ability to land - and learning what exactly?

Let's see.... Phobos landing, Deimos landing, ISRU development (assuming these bodies contain water), teleoperation of equipment on the Mars surface (including establishment of infrastructure for a crewed landing), recovery of historic hardware from Mars orbit for engineering studies), establising a safe haven in Mars orbit,

There is absolutely no point whatsoever to sending humans on what amounts to Christopher Columbus or Leif Erikson sailing parallel to the North American coastline, looking at it in his spyglass, then turning around and going home.

If you are going back to the sailinbg ship days there are precedents for the first sighting not being followed by a landing.

As far as a lander being developed later, later than what? Another 10 - 20 years after the first human orbit of Mars?

Maybe, but also maybe for the next mission.

I think that is an epic, ill conceived, visionless and bankrupt non-plan, as is possible to offer after a year-long study.
It's beyond pathetic. Just my point of view about this current American administration's retching.Also I add, that this malaise spans the last quarter century of the American civilian space agency, with equally culpable administrations and congresses.

Careful, this is not the venue for your political prejudices.

 

[neutrino78x]

On the other hand, because of the lack of gravity, a spaceship could not safely land on an asteroid; it would bounce off the surface. Instead, it would have to hover next to the asteroid, and the astronauts would have to spacewalk down to the ground, Yeomans said.

Once there, they would need some combination of jet packs, spikes or nets to enable them to walk without skittering off the asteroid and floating away, he said.

"You would need some way to hold yourself down," Yeomans said. "You'd launch yourself into space every time you took a step."

Who writes this stuff? An asteroid, or even an atom has gravity, how much depends on it's mass. Landings have already been demonstrated on two different asteroids. True it might not be much gravity and if very small you could jump into an orbit or maybe reach escape velocity, but the blanket statement there is a lack of gravity is ridiculous.

I fixed the attribution for you, I think this makes it more clear.

I think that, in context, the statement "lack of gravity" means "having negligible gravity, or in any case, having less gravity than, for example, the Moon, or Mars." The phrase "lack of" does not necessarily mean "complete absence of".

The definition of "lack" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the American equivalent of the OED:

Main Entry: 2lack
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lak; akin to Middle Dutch lak lack, Old Norse lakr defective
Date: 14th century

1 : the fact or state of being wanting or deficient <a lack of evidence>
2 : something that is lacking or is needed

(emphasis my own)

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

(hopefully you guys all saw my edit, I had to change my quote from the verb definition of lack to the more appropriate noun definition.)

 

[neutrino78x]

I was thinking about the -no-plan, of orbiting Mars in the 2030's.

This was evident from your original post, but, the Flexible Path plan from the Augustine Commission -- which is what the President is following -- calls for an orbit of Mars before a separate mission lands.

There is absolutely no point whatsoever to sending humans on what amounts to Christopher Columbus or Leif Erikson sailing parallel to the North American coastline, looking at it in his spyglass, then turning around and going home.

I think the Augustine Commission would argue that it is a test of the technology.

Here is what was said:

So we'll start -- we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it. (Applause.)

While I agree with you that we probably should not send humans if they are not going to land, I would also point out that Apollo 11 was not ten years after Apollo 8.

Obama's target of the 2030s for a manned landing on Mars is not much different from the Constellation plan.

The Obama administration's U.S. Review of Human Space Flight Committee, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, also concluded that NASA budgets would not allow a return to the moon until well past the target date of 2020.

So, under Constellation, we land on the Moon in 2020. Assuming that happens on time, we land on Mars sometime after the Moon base is established, let us assume 10 years.

So that brings us to 2030.

Hence, I must ask you, sir, what is the problem with Obama's plan? You don't want to get more non-NASA people living and working in space on a regular basis, which is the goal of the plan?

--Brian

 

[scottb50]

Hence, I must ask you, sir, what is the problem with Obama's plan? You don't want to get more non-NASA people living and working in space on a regular basis, which is the goal of the plan?

I have to agree that since we have put numerous objects into Mars orbit and a few of them are still providing information well past their planned life and since we have landed even more objects on the surface of Mars and all have exceeded their planned lives, the Rovers by a number of years, there is little usefulness in an orbital mission to Mars before we send a surface lander. What would it prove that hasn't already been proven?

 

[neutrino78x]

I have to agree that since we have put numerous objects into Mars orbit and a few of them are still providing information well past their planned life and since we have landed even more objects on the surface of Mars and all have exceeded their planned lives, the Rovers by a number of years, there is little usefulness in an orbital mission to Mars before we send a surface lander. What would it prove that hasn't already been proven?

Well, it would prove that the manned ship works...but anyway, you still didn't tell me what your issue is with Obama's plan. Both his plan and the original Bush Constellation plan involve not landing on Mars until 2030.

--Brian

 

[MeteorWayne]

And the difference is that Obama at least is trying to provide sufficient funding, while Bush never even came close to realistic financial support. Since the end time is the same, I'd rather have a realistic goal than one that had no chance from day 1.

 

[scottb50]

Well, it would prove that the manned ship works...but anyway, you still didn't tell me what your issue is with Obama's plan. Both his plan and the original Bush Constellation plan involve not landing on Mars until 2030.

I don't have a major problem with Obama's plan while if you look back on my posts you will see I, correctly, dismissed Bush's plans as lip service. An asteroid mission, before Mars would more then prove the vehicle and makes a lot more sense then returning to the moon. I still question if it should take priority over Mars and I still fall back on the fact asteroids have been landed on as well as Mars and the moon. It can and has been done so why do we have to prove it again?

In 2000 I was advocating a 2010 manned Mars mission and still see no technical reason it couldn't have been done, I also still think the 10 year time frame would be needed because we are still in virtually the same position we were in ten years ago. The same thing would apply to an asteroid mission except that robotic missions would allow much quicker results and make it easier to decide if asteroids are even worth visiting or a waste of time and money. Mars, on the other hand has been robotically explored and the data returned has more then shown the worth of a manned mission, or missions.

In regard to 2030 I think it would cost a lot less in 2020, hopefully Obama is not just giving lip service, like Bush did to quiet the masses, that remains to be proven. With Bush it was clear from the beginning so we'll see in abot a year.

 

[aaron38]

Is the plan to visit a Near Earth Asteroid, or one in the Main Belt? If it's a trip to the belt, might as well land on one of the big ones, Ceres or Vesta. Those are much more likley to have ice, which allows for ISRU technology demonstrations, maybe even a mission extension. Go visit Ceres, and if the refeuling is successful, go on to Vesta before coming home.

Going all that way to land on one of the small ones, a dusty dry rock, is pointless. It's like sailing across the Pacific to land on a one-palm tree hill of sand. You get there and say "Great, now what?"

If it's a Near Earth Asteroid, the primary mission goal should be doing something usefull, like figuring out how to move it. Set up a nuclear thermal or NEP rocket and push it around. Hell, tug it back to the L4 point and make it a space station. Just do anything other than another flag and bootprint waste of time.

And if the ship isn't going to have a nuclear reactor because of political concerns, then just scrap the entire project now and save the money.

 

[JonClarke]

If it's a Near Earth Asteroid, the primary mission goal should be doing something usefull, like figuring out how to move it. Set up a nuclear thermal or NEP rocket and push it around. Hell, tug it back to the L4 point and make it a space station. Just do anything other than another flag and bootprint waste of time.

Gainign knowledge is never a waste of time.

And if the ship isn't going to have a nuclear reactor because of political concerns, then just scrap the entire project now and save the money.

You don't need a reactor to visit an asteroid.

 

[neilsox]

If President Obama did not specify main belt asteroid or NEO asteroid then the plan is poorly thought out as there is a huge difference, such as years of travel time verses as little as one day. For NEO, I picture a ship with a rocket engine at both ends. One end burning a shaft into the asteroid while the other end holds the the craft in position. The astronauts are staying very long term as the return trip will be much farther even if they stay only one week. Logically we wait to return until the asteroid approaches Earth again in a few decades. Neil

 

[sywuz]

Obama spoke about — we’ve done the moon, so we are going to do asteroids and Mars. This is total pie in the sky. On what rocket? With what space capsule? With what simulators? With what training program? There’s nothing here of substance.

And when Kennedy committed us "in this decade," as he said, he meant it within his presidency. He intended to be — he expected he’d be — president until January 1969. Obama is talking about 2025, 2030. All of this is total speculation.

And what it does is it ends our human dominance in space, which we had for 50 years. We have no way to get into earth orbit. We’re going to have to hitch a ride on the Russians who are charging us extraordinary rates and are only going to increase that.

All the private stuff [launching humans into space] is complete speculation. What we’re doing is we're ceding the certainty of access into space. We are not going to have it. The Russians will have it. The Chinese will have it.

We spent tens of billions on the space station and spent three decades in constructing it. We're not going to have any way to get there.

And we'll look up in a decade and there’s going to be a lunar base ... there are NOT going to be Americans on it.

 

[Crossover_Maniac]

FOX has been pissing all over the President for the Asteroid business. Maybe the boys and girls at FOX can't understand why its more important to be able to control an asteroid at the moment. If one hits us the economy is going to get really really really bad. If I survive and find one of the FOX girls in the street........ :lol:

If you're referring to the article, that came from the AP, not Fox News.

 

[edkyle99]

Obama spoke about — we’ve done the moon ...

I believe NASA could "do" the Moon again, with no new rockets and with no big budget increase. Here is my thought experiment on this. www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html

- Ed Kyle

 

[EarthlingX]

Lander.