Plymouth Rock Mission Goals: Earth Security or Job Security?

[rockett]

What we really need is a true point to point space vehicle that doesn't carry all the overhead and redundancy of two Orions tacked together(not to mention the extra mass of heat shields and such) for real deep space missions.

Sure, but with a limited budget, it might be better to use two or more commercial capsules linked together.

--Brian

Same applys to that as to two linked Orions. You would be boosting a lot of dead weight (with the additional fuel expediture) both ways that's not needed and for very little benefit. In addition, in either case, for a long duration mission it would be crowded. Also, you would want different engines anyway for an interplanetary mission. At that point, you've rebuilt better than half the spacecraft, so a roomier, purpose built design is far superior.

None of the commercial craft could handle it anyway without extensive redesign in shielding and life support, so Orion would be a better choice if you were forced to use an existing capsule.

 

[rockett]

This mission accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done for about 1% of the cost by a robotic probe.

Normally I would agree with you, but with an asteroid there is national security interest, albeit long term. A manned mission also eliminates concerns about speed of light delay in terms of controlling an asteroid in a relative emergency.

--Brian

National secvurity interest? There really are ETs on them?

 

[EarthlingX]

www.spaceflightnow.com : Asteroids are back in vogue

BY STEPHEN CLARK

Posted: September 5, 2010

Responding to President Obama's call for a manned asteroid mission by 2025, brainstorming scientists and engineers say NASA could start exploring nearby space rocks with robotic probes in four years, followed by a bare-bones human expedition by the end of the decade.

 

[vulture4]

Again I have to ask, what possible geopolitical or scientific goal would this mission accomplish that would be worth $100 billion to a nation already deeply in debt?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

If you have to ask then you obviously haven't been reading what we will gain from this. I would rather the lunar base orientation that Constellation was positioned for, but I will take what we can get. And where do you get your 100 billion dollar number from?

 

[brandbll]

What I see here is NASA being proactive and doing something that is outside of LEO. That in itself is commendable. There are many benefits that we receive from going to an asteroid, and it should be cheaper and easier than a return to the moon or a Mars mission.

Can someone explain to me just exactly how it is easier AND cheaper than going to the Moon?

I would think part of the expensive part of the original plan to return to the moon was that we were trying to send four people there whereas with this asteroid mission we are sending two.

I don't know how it could be easier whatsoever. We already have an orbiter at the Moon taking high res pictures. You cannot discount this tool in assisting with landing, it is EXTREMELY valuable not only to the mission's success but the safety of the astronauts. How much are we going to know about the landscape of any asteroid we choose? Not to mention, we've been to the Moon. It seems a lot safer going there than attempting something like traveling to an asteroid, landing, and making it back to Earth safely.

So how exactly is going to an Asteroid cheaper and easier?

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Cheaper and easier? It isn't.

They may consider the gas milage good, but who wants to spend months in a tin can just to see a rock you can't do anything with? Can't mine the silly things in any way without spending ridiculous amounts of money or coming very close to killing yourself. Even the rocks they bring back will cost more than the they are worth (They will be more expensive than gold, diamonds,... you get the idea. The return on the investment simply isn't there from a mining and fabrication standpoint. Sure, lots of great stuff up there. Logistically and economically speaking, it is all junk since you can't use it and nobody would buy it. Remember, if it can be produced cheaper by a competitor, you lose. Just because you have a solid gold asteroid doesn't mean you're going to be rich. (Location, location, location).

Now a reason that does make sense is if you are filthy rich and already did Everest several times, you might be a bit bored and need to do something bigger. Now that I understand (don't agree with it but I do understand it). Maybe the moon just isn't 'BIG' enough...

 

[menellom]

who wants to spend months in a tin can just to see a rock you can't do anything with?

It may not sound as 'exciting' as the Constellation plan to put another flag on the Moon, but it is a step in the right direction if we ever plan on sending humans anywhere beyond the Earth-Moon neighborhood.

A mission to a near-Earth asteroid is a good opportunity to develop and test spacecraft for deep space flights, and it's good practice for a mission to Mars. When we finally do go to Mars we aren't going to head straight for the surface - early manned missions to Mars would be orbital or would land on Phobos and Deimos.

Also, until better propulsion is developed, 90% of any mission to another planet is going to be astronauts spending months in a tin can... so you better get used to the idea.

 

[brandbll]

Cheaper and easier? It isn't.

They may consider the gas milage good, but who wants to spend months in a tin can just to see a rock you can't do anything with? Can't mine the silly things in any way without spending ridiculous amounts of money or coming very close to killing yourself. Even the rocks they bring back will cost more than the they are worth (They will be more expensive than gold, diamonds,... you get the idea. The return on the investment simply isn't there from a mining and fabrication standpoint. Sure, lots of great stuff up there. Logistically and economically speaking, it is all junk since you can't use it and nobody would buy it. Remember, if it can be produced cheaper by a competitor, you lose. Just because you have a solid gold asteroid doesn't mean you're going to be rich. (Location, location, location).

Now a reason that does make sense is if you are filthy rich and already did Everest several times, you might be a bit bored and need to do something bigger. Now that I understand (don't agree with it but I do understand it). Maybe the moon just isn't 'BIG' enough...

Not even mining wise. Science wise it's pointless to send humans to do a manned mission on an asteroid. They are talking about asteroids that are about the size of a football field. Now i'm not an asteroid expert, but i'd say the majority of that asteroid is going to be composed of the same material inside and out. Basically, there isn't going to be a whole lot to explore or perform experiments on. Meaning you land, walk out of the craft, grab a shovel full of dirt, and you've done as much you need to do. There aren't these great geological structures to be studied. This is a perfect job for a lander. Doesn't make much sense to burn hundreds of millions of dollars and risk human lives to do such a simple task.

 

[brandbll]

who wants to spend months in a tin can just to see a rock you can't do anything with?

It may not sound as 'exciting' as the Constellation plan to put another flag on the Moon, but it is a step in the right direction if we ever plan on sending humans anywhere beyond the Earth-Moon neighborhood.

A mission to a near-Earth asteroid is a good opportunity to develop and test spacecraft for deep space flights, and it's good practice for a mission to Mars. When we finally do go to Mars we aren't going to head straight for the surface - early manned missions to Mars would be orbital or would land on Phobos and Deimos.

Also, until better propulsion is developed, 90% of any mission to another planet is going to be astronauts spending months in a tin can... so you better get used to the idea.

We can take new propulsion systems for plenty of tests going to the moon and back. And at least as Apollo 13 proved we can recover from big errors. You talk about excitement and just planting a flag, but that's exactly what this asteroid mission would be. We'd plant a flag, take a shovel full of asteroid dirt, and them come back to Earth and cheer about how we managed to land on an asteroid.

If we go to the moon the astronauts would spend countless hours doing hard science. We'd could bring a rover and cover hundreds of yards if not miles of ground. Meaning you have that much more of an area you can study. If you land on an asteroid there is no point in bringing a rover because there is nothing worth roving around to study anyways.

NASA doesn't have an endless supply of money. We need to get the biggest bang for our buck, and by bang i mean scientific information gained. You say we need to test how humans will stand up to long term space flight over months at a time, but wasn't that the whole point of the decades of space stations we've been doing? Plus, if we go to the moon we can experiment with putting bases there, perhaps something like a bigelow inflatable module. If we send people to Mars we aren't going to just go there, land, and then want to come right back. The Moon is the perfect step for this because like i said earlier, if something goes wrong it's easy to abort and come back to Earth and save lives.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not even mining wise. Science wise it's pointless to send humans to do a manned mission on an asteroid. They are talking about asteroids that are about the size of a football field. Now i'm not an asteroid expert, but i'd say the majority of that asteroid is going to be composed of the same material inside and out. Basically, there isn't going to be a whole lot to explore or perform experiments on. Meaning you land, walk out of the craft, grab a shovel full of dirt, and you've done as much you need to do. There aren't these great geological structures to be studied. This is a perfect job for a lander. Doesn't make much sense to burn hundreds of millions of dollars and risk human lives to do such a simple task.

Well said!

 

[uberhund]

So it's settled.

Dear NASA: no Plymouth Rock with humans. Send probes and rovers instead.
PS: And let us help. Sounds like fun. I really really want to pilot a rover on an asteroid. I won't be picky which one.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I have to agree. The more I read about this mission, the more pointless it seems to be compared to returning to the moon or going to Mars. I mean sure an asteroid is a new place to visit, but there's a lot more to it than just that.

 

[uberhund]

Yea! Yuri and I finally agree on something. I'll step aside and let you pilot one of the rovers. Well, for the first asteroidal day anyway.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

The thing is that NASA's budget just can't support missions to go anywhere and everywhere in deep space. We need to pick our targets wisely, especially when it comes to MSF.

 

[JoshHopkins]

David Livingston's interview on The Space Show regarding the Plymouth Rock concept may be of interest. In the discussion we did address some of the justifications for such a mission.

The link to the show is: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1418

 

[uberhund]

Wow, Josh. Thanks for posting. It's an honor.

I'm downloading the mp3 playback now, and I look forward to hearing it. I'll probably have a hundred questions, of which I hope you'll have time to answer at least a couple. Thanks again for joining the thread.

 

[uberhund]

Just finished listening to your broadcast (for the 2nd time), Josh. You're very good in front of the microphone.

Also, you have a great job. If I may paraphrase for the others in the thread, you work for Lockheed to identify opportunities for existing Lockheed hardware assets to solve problems that have yet to be identified in the public agenda. This, therefore, is why you rolled out the Plymouth Rock concept. Please fine tune this if I've got it wrong.

Meanwhile, apropos our debate in this thread over manned versus unmanned missions, I built the following table from your remarks as to when robotic probes would be appropriate for a given mission, or when a human visit might be better:

From this table, and from your remarks, it becomes likely that any NEO visited by humans will have be preceded by at least one probe visit, and at least two lunar shake-out flights of the Plymouth Rock Orion configurations.

In an attempt to understand the ratio of probes to Orion/Plymouth Rock missions, I also built a decision tree, which, for the moment, uses place holders for population percents and mission costs. Using my placeholders for population percents, however, I get that only 3% of NEOs would be Plymouth Rock candidates.

My question: is the population of Plymouth Rock candidates large enough to merit further consideration of Plymouth Rock missions with only 3% of NEOs being possible destinations, especially since at least one probe will have already reconnoitered and sampled it?

 

[neutrino78x]

Excellent points in vulture4's reply to my post...

It's not clear what national security interest there is,

This part is easy to answer: an significant asteroid impact on US soil could destroy US defense assets or a major city. A big enough one could destroy the USA entirely, along with the majority of humanity.

or how it could be served by having a few people spend a few days there when a probe could provide reports indefinitely. Even NEAR and Hayabusa did quite a bit in analyzing what was there. As to the speed of light, it's not likely a crew would, or would have to, do anything without checking with ground control, while most probes have fairly complex autonomous capabilities.

Well, for example, Ground Control might say "permission granted to land on the asteroid" (let's say it is a very large asteroid). But as they are landing, the asteroid suddenly changes direction or something. Mission control could not command a robot fast enough, if there is a SoL delay, but humans could adapt. Although I definitely agree that Artificial Intelligence control is very advanced, and it gets more advanced with time. It definitely depends on the asteroid and exactly what you want to do with it.

We could establish permanent robotic bases on dozens of asteroids for less than the cost of one manned mission.

Absolutely true.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

None of the commercial craft could handle it anyway without extensive redesign in shielding and life support, so Orion would be a better choice if you were forced to use an existing capsule.

Well, I definitely agree that if we are going to have NASA owned spacecraft, they should be Beyond Earth Orbit craft.

I don't mind having some Orion craft built as long as it is a fixed cost, competitive bid contract. In other words, SpaceX et al. get to compete, and it is not corporate welfare for LM. Also, any capsule has to be able to be used for different missions; go to the Moon, go to Mars, go to an Asteroid, all by swapping out modules and/or making minor modifications.

Generally speaking, though, if commercial capsules, already being built for other purposes, can be bought and modified, that is preferred.

Right now it seems that SpaceX et al. are making more progress in HSF than Boeing et al.

--Brian

 

[uberhund]

Is the population of Plymouth Rock candidates large enough to merit further consideration of Plymouth Rock hardware development when only 3% (my math, not Josh's) of NEOs exist as possible destinations, especially since at least one probe will have already reconnoitered and sampled selected targets?

 

[vulture4]

Excellent points in vulture4's reply to my post...

Thanks for the kind words. I also appreciate your points but would like to further clarify why I feel robotic systems would be more feasible for asteroid exploration.

a significant asteroid impact on US soil could destroy US defense assets or a major city. A big enough one could destroy the USA entirely, along with the majority of humanity.

I agree that a major asteroid impact could be problematic. However it isn't necessary to visit an asteroid to plot its path. The proposed methods for changing an asteroid's orbit involve plotting its orbit years ahead and nudging it with a low-thrust ion drive or Vasimir for a few months or years. This doesn't require people, indeed an unmanned vehicle is required to minimize vehicle mass and transit time and remain for the required time.

Ground Control might say "permission granted to land on the asteroid" (let's say it is a very large asteroid). But as they are landing, the asteroid suddenly changes direction or something. Mission control could not command a robot fast enough, if there is a SoL delay, but humans could adapt.

An asteroid cannot change direction unless it is perturbed by the gravity of the Sun or a planetary body, in which case the probe would experience the same perturbation.

 

[JoshHopkins]

Also, you have a great job. If I may paraphrase for the others in the thread, you work for Lockheed to identify opportunities for existing Lockheed hardware assets to solve problems that have yet to be identified in the public agenda. This, therefore, is why you rolled out the Plymouth Rock concept. Please fine tune this if I've got it wrong.

Close. Most of the time my job is to help invent things from scratch to meet future needs, rather than repurposing existing products. This was actually a bit unusual in the recent phase of my career.

Meanwhile, apropos our debate in this thread over manned versus unmanned missions, I built the following table from your remarks as to when robotic probes would be appropriate for a given mission, or when a human visit might be better:

That's a pretty good summary. I would probably modify it to say that low spin rate asteroids are appropriate for either robots or human spacecraft, medium spin rate ones are better tackled by people than robots, and very high spin rate ones should be left alone entirely. But my friends on the other side of the plant (where LM builds interplanetary spacecraft) might disagree with me on the middle category.

In an attempt to understand the ratio of probes to Orion/Plymouth Rock missions, I also built a decision tree, which, for the moment, uses place holders for population percents and mission costs. Using my placeholders for population percents, however, I get that only 3% of NEOs would be Plymouth Rock candidates.

My question: is the population of Plymouth Rock candidates large enough to merit further consideration of Plymouth Rock missions with only 3% of NEOs being possible destinations, especially since at least one probe will have already reconnoitered and sampled it?

There are currently about 7200 known Near Earth Asteroids, of which only a handful are really easily accessible in the next twenty years or so. (More would be with a fancier space ship than we propose, or if your planning horizon is longer than mine). So, that's closer to one in a thousand rather than 3%. A somewhat larger fraction are accessible with robotic spacecraft, but many are out of reach even for robotic spacecraft, especially if you want to do a round trip for sample return.

With only 7200 discovered, one in 1000 is indeed a pretty small set of candidates. That makes a limited capability system like Plymouth Rock a tough sell at the moment. However, astronomers have discovered about 900 new Near Earth Asteroids in just the last twelve months and there are plenty more where those came from. There are estimated to be something like a quarter million Near Earth Asteroids larger than 50 meters across, and many millions more which are smaller. Discovering even a modest fraction of those is going to generate a pretty good set of candidate targets in the relatively near future.

You can see more info on asteroid discovery statistics here: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/

 

[uberhund]

Thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive response, Josh. I look forward to working the data into my model from the link you provided.

Meanwhile, please keep us informed of any new inventions you might be ready to talk about.

 

[matthewota]

It would take a special class of astronauts to endure six months in such a small living space. I don't think they should consider sending a double Orion craft, but an Orion with an inflatable Bigelow module to give them more living space, in order to preserve their sanity.