Why a manned mission to an asteroid?

[mental_avenger]

BTW, I never considered a space elevator to be a viable concept for Earth. However, it just might work on Mars.

 

[mental_avenger]

Now, back to the asteroids.

While it is true that asteroids may well contain large amounts of valuable raw materials, the problems with rendezvous, distance, life support etc. make it impractical to mine them. An alternative would be to select prospective candidates that are due to have close encounters with Mars or the Moon, and redirect them to crash into remote sites on those bodies. Then it would be relatively easy to mine the resources of the asteroid. That includes the fact that such an impact would do a lot of the mining for you, breaking the asteroid into small pieces.

 

[mental_avenger]

Recently, President Obama spoke at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to announce his new proposed direction for the US space agency: skip the moon, send man to a near-Earth asteroid (NEO) by the mid 2020's and use this new technological know-how to get humans to our ultimate goal -- Mars.

Obama is an idiot, as he has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated.

 

[EarthlingX]

Obama is an idiot, as he has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated.

Dubya was a champion in this field, as he demonstrated every time he had a chance.

Could we stick to asteroids ?

 

[Couerl]

There may well be a genuine scientific payoff to this venture, but I can't think of it off hand. Certainly nothing even close in comparison to Hubble and that's a drop in the budgetary bucket in comparison to a manned mission to an asteroid.. Isn't it?

 

[mental_avenger]

Dubya was a champion in this field, as he demonstrated every time he had a chance.

Could we stick to asteroids ?

I was responding directly to a quote you posted, so the comment was relevant. After all, it was Obama who proposed landing on an asteroid. Your response, however, was off topic and irrelevant.

 

[mental_avenger]

There may well be a genuine scientific payoff to this venture, but I can't think of it off hand. Certainly nothing even close in comparison to Hubble and that's a drop in the budgetary bucket in comparison to a manned mission to an asteroid.. Isn't it?

The only manned mission to an asteroid that would make sense would be a mission whose purpose was to alter the course of the asteroid, either to avoid Earth, or to deliberately crash it into Mars or some other celestial body. If that could be done robotically, it wouldn’t even require a manned mission.

 

[vulture4]

The argument between the Moon, Mars, and an asteroid is a phoney argument. All are just variants of "Apollo on Steroids", or as some call it, "Apollo on crack". A new space spectacular will be as unsustainable as Apollo, regardless of its destination. These are all attempts to shift the demand curve, to find some existential goal for human spaceflight that give it an infinite value to justify a nearly infinite cost.

If NASA is to be financed with tax dollars, it must produce practical benefits for America, not as an accidental byproduct, but as a primary goal. And sending a few government employees BEO is simply not worth a billion dollars, not when a NASA researcher can't get a lousy . If we want human spaceflight at all, we must shift the cost curve; reduce its cost until the work we can do in space is worth the cost of getting there. That was the goal of Shuttle. Only fully reusable vehicles can make human spaceflight practical, whether to LEO or beyond. The only thing a fully reusable launch vehicle must have is fuel, and even for the Shuttle the cost of fuel is negligible.

 

[bdewoody]

Again MA this threead was supposed to be about the relative merits of a mission to an asteroid vs. a plan to build a base on the moon. You keep going back to your Mars first argument. Please leave Mars out of this discussion, And since you stated yourself that a manned mission to an asteroid with the stated goal of learning to divert said asteroid has no advantage over a robotic mission I don't see the point of your argument.

Remember every molecule of water contains 2 atoms of hydrogen.

We ain't goin to Mars anytime soon so between spending money on a vague mission to an asteroid or on a plan for a moon base which is the best use of funds?

 

[kg]

From what I've read in this thread I would go for the mission to the moon over an asteroid. I like the idea of being able to get people bact to earth in just a few days as opposed to months or years. I would prefer to let the robots do the exploring for the time being seeing as they are doing such a good job of it already. Mayby when we have collected enough data remotely a clear and compelling reason to send people on a mission will turn up.

 

[mental_avenger]

The argument between the Moon, Mars, and an asteroid is a phoney argument. All are just variants of "Apollo on Steroids", or as some call it, "Apollo on crack".

Well, that may be your argument, but it isn’t ours. Those of us who think that mankind, with all its faults, is still worth saving as a species, understand that it is imperative to build viable self-sufficient colonies off Earth. If that is the only goal, it is a worthy goal.

If we want human spaceflight at all, we must shift the cost curve; reduce its cost until the work we can do in space is worth the cost of getting there. That was the goal of Shuttle.

No, it wasn’t, at least not in the final analysis. The STS was a huge compromise which didn’t do any particular job very well or very economically.

Only fully reusable vehicles can make human spaceflight practical, whether to LEO or beyond. The only thing a fully reusable launch vehicle must have is fuel, and even for the Shuttle the cost of fuel is negligible

The STS was not fully reused, not even close. All in all, 130 External tanks were deliberately sent into the atmosphere to burn up. That is a total of about 8,450,000 lbs launched into orbit which could have been reused as orbiting space station components. In addition, STS orbiters have been constantly upgraded, rebuilt, and repaired. They need a LOT more than just fuel.

For most missions, the STS is an extremely overbuilt, overpriced vehicle that costs far too much to operate.

 

[mental_avenger]

Again MA this threead was supposed to be about the relative merits of a mission to an asteroid vs. a plan to build a base on the moon.

And like most threads, it has evolved. Since the concepts are so interrelated and somewhat interdependent, it is not practical to leave out relevant considerations. For instance, if a major purpose for a base on the Moon is to manufacture fuel for long distance space flights, then it is relevant to discuss those flights when figuring out when to build those bases, what they should manufacture, and how much they should produce. If the goal was to build a base on the Moon that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything else in space, then you’d have a point.

You keep going back to your Mars first argument.

Actually it is more of a “Mars in proper perspective” argument.

And since you stated yourself that a manned mission to an asteroid with the stated goal of learning to divert said asteroid has no advantage over a robotic mission I don't see the point of your argument.

I didn’t say that. I said “If it could be done robotically………”

We ain't goin to Mars anytime soon so between spending money on a vague mission to an asteroid or on a plan for a moon base which is the best use of funds?

That depends upon the purpose of the Moon base and the purpose of the asteroid mission. There are many possible mission profiles for either. Without knowing what those missions would be, the question cannot be answered. So, is the Moon base supposed to be just so we can have a presence there, or will the Moon base be used to produce fuel for Mars missions? Will the purpose of a trip to an asteroid be just to say we’ve been there, or will it be to install engines to divert its trajectory? Or will the missions be none of the above?

 

[neilsox]

While I disagree with most of President Obama's actions, intentions and words, planning a trip to an asteroid is likely all we will get, until we get a new president, so let's try to direct the effort in useful directions. 1 Let's concentrate on NEO = near earth asteroids (near circular orbit) as they are easier than Mars, possibly easier than a manned trip to the Moon. 2 tiny asteroids = small dimension about 30 meters, have essentially no gravity, so the first leg of the return to Earth trip is much easier. 3 Very long term on/in the asteroid should be a back up alternative to returning to Earth. 4 The mass center of an asteroid has less ionizing radiation than sea level on Earth, unless the asteroid material is radioactive = unknown until we build the habitat. We have the same problem on Mars or the moon as the first mission will not have the time or resources to start a second habitat if the first is dangerous. 5 We have to mine (and refine) kilograms of material before we can do tons; we have lots of material = About 100,000 tons in a 30 meter asteroid, 6 I don't think diverting an asteroid to Mars or the moon is likely before 2040, even if someone completes Dr. Brad Edwards' space elevator in 2020, but we can demonstrate moving the asteroid we land on one second of arc, by multiple methods = perhaps a worthy goal of the first manned mission to a tiny asteroid. Neil

 

[orionrider]

I don't think you have to dig an asteroid for shielding. Radiation is directional, it comes from a source. If you keep the asteroid between you and the source of radiation, it will effectively shield you. Even from a distance, as long as you stay in the 'shadow' of the rock, it would be OK. And you wouldn't have to match the tumbling of the asteroid, constantly align antennas, etc.

As for deflecting space rocks: One easy thing to do with a 30m asteroid is to coat it in white or black pigment to see how much radiation pressure alters its trajectory over time. :idea:

 

[mental_avenger]

AFAIK, most asteroids are tumbling in one, two, or three axis, some at a rather high rate of rotation. In order to consider any onboard deflection system, the rotation would have to be stopped.

 

[mental_avenger]

While I disagree with most of President Obama's actions, intentions and words, planning a trip to an asteroid is likely all we will get, until we get a new president, so let's try to direct the effort in useful directions.

He won’t be president enough longer to put any plans into motion, so why waste the time and money. I suggest pushing forward in supporting actually useful missions, behind the scenes, until we get someone who will promote them.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

To my mind, this is all a no-brainer. (I'm going off-topic, too. But the subjects are inescapably inter-related. So, Moon first, asteroid and Mars later.)

If we can't learn to live self-sufficiently on the Moon for long, extended periods of time or even indefinitely, then we have no business seriously considering venturing off to, and living on, Mars. We're talking up to 3 years for a round-trip Mars journey, visit, and return.

The Moon is our testing and learning ground. All these ideas about leap-frogging off to Mars are inane, in my opinion. If something goes seriously wrong en-route to, or on the Martian surface, the astronauts are screwed. We don't know enough yet to take such a risk with our money, or our blood.

If a "high-falutin' " Mars mission ends in utter disaster, it will set back the space program 50 or more years! A steady, practical, step-by-step establishment and development of a moonbase is the way to go. A decade or two after achieving self-sufficiency on the Moon, then we can seriously plan--or be planning-- a viable Mars mission.

And what if we can't achieve self-sufficiency on the Moon, only 200,000 or so miles away? What if we have to continually bring up fresh supplies from Earth? Well, then what the hell are we going to do on Mars? 30 million miles away at its closest approach? We're asking for disaster if we impulsively--and childishly-- venture headstrong off to Mars.

We can't even make our Antarctic bases self-sufficient, and there's at least air and ubiquitious frozen water in Antarctica. So Mars, in my strong opinion, is out of the question for the foreseeable future.

Don't get me wrong. A one-off dramatic manned mission to Mars would be great for the ratings! But then what? We come back and say, "see, we did it." Woopy-doo! It would be a big waste of very tight money.

 

[mental_avenger]

To my mind, this is all a no-brainer.

I’ll let the opportunity slide on by………….

If we can't learn to live self-sufficiently on the Moon for long, extended periods of time or even indefinitely, then we have no business seriously considering venturing off to, and living on, Mars. We're talking up to 3 years for a round-trip Mars journey, visit, and return.

And what if we can't achieve self-sufficiency on the Moon, only 200,000 or so miles away? What if we have to continually bring up fresh supplies from Earth? Well, then what the hell are we going to do on Mars? 30 million miles away at its closest approach? We're asking for disaster if we impulsively--and childishly-- venture headstrong off to Mars.

Mars has many resources that the Moon does not have, so the inability to be self-sufficient on the Moon in no way rules out self sufficiency on Mars. The two are dramatically different. The Moon cannot be used to determine the viability of Mars.

We can't even make our Antarctic bases self-sufficient, and there's at least air and ubiquitious frozen water in Antarctica. So Mars, in my strong opinion, is out of the question for the foreseeable future.

We could, but we haven’t made a serious effort yet. All the little baby steps are using up valuable time and resources. We have the technology, but the PTB are afraid to take the big leap. They are still standing on the board trying to figure out which area of the water looks softest.

Don't get me wrong. A one-off dramatic manned mission to Mars would be great for the ratings! But then what? We come back and say, "see, we did it." Woopy-doo! It would be a big waste of very tight money.

IMO the only viable Mars mission would be for people to go there and stay. That dramatically reduces the complexity of the transportation system, and it provides additional incentive for follow up missions.

The Moon is our testing and learning ground.

What can be tested on the Moon, which cannot be tested here on Earth in a stadium sized testing dome capable of duplicating any environment and condition except gravity? Here it could be done much less expensive, much faster, and much safer.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

MA wrote- "Mars has many resources that the Moon doesn't have..."

Absolutely! Therefore, if we can achieve self-sufficiency on the Moon, then Mars will be a relative cake-walk.

"...we can simulate the Moon in a stadium..."

Yeah, but a simulation is not the real thing. And if it's too expensive to use the Moon as a testing and learning ground, then surly using Mars is too expensive as well. And we're not just going to take "one" trip to Mars and be done with it. I think that's unrealistic.

It would take at least several different manned and unmanned supply ships to establish any viable permanent operation on Mars. Redundancy would be our safety net.

Anywho, although I'd be glad to see us go anywhere in space, this whole asteroid business is a bunch of piss-ant ballyhoo. The Moon Moon Moon!! :geek:

 

[orionrider]

In order to consider any onboard deflection system, the rotation would have to be stopped.

Not really. If you coat a high albedo asteroid with a dark pigment, it will change its orbit. If the rock is dark, coating it with white pigment will alter its trajectory in the opposite way. Even if it rotates. The problem would be to keep the pigment on the surface despite centrifugal effects. Alternatively, use a very thin 'sail' to wrap the asteroid.

You can also put solar-powered robots on the surface to dig and throw bits of the rock into space. Do it at intervals so the pebbles always leave in the same general direction. This would have a tiny, but lasting effect. The robots would be placed near the center of mass, and would have to be anchored using a loop cable or netting. This technique has a 2-fold effect: it slowly decreases the total mass and pushes the whole asteroid by reaction. Both slightly change the orbit.

 

[mental_avenger]

MA wrote- "Mars has many resources that the Moon doesn't have..."

Absolutely! Therefore, if we can achieve self-sufficiency on the Moon, then Mars will be a relative cake-walk.

One does not preclude the other. For instance, if carbon cannot be practically extracted on the Moon, that has no bearing on the fact that Mars has plenty of carbon, a necessary element for survival. That is only one of several relevant examples.

"...we can simulate the Moon in a stadium..."

Yeah, but a simulation is not the real thing. And if it's too expensive to use the Moon as a testing and learning ground, then surly using Mars is too expensive as well.

Non sequitur. No one is suggesting using Mars as a testing ground for Mars.

It would take at least several different manned and unmanned supply ships to establish any viable permanent operation on Mars. Redundancy would be our safety net.

Agreed, partly. That is why I advocate the successful landing of enough robotic supply ships on the surface of Mars to supply the first colony for 5 years, before the first manned mission.

 

[mental_avenger]

Not really. If you coat a high albedo asteroid with a dark pigment, it will change its orbit. If the rock is dark, coating it with white pigment will alter its trajectory in the opposite way. Even if it rotates.

I was referring to a steerable deflection system, as would be needed to crash an asteroid onto the Moon or Mars.

You can also put solar-powered robots on the surface to dig and throw bits of the rock into space.

Creative. But that would hardly produce enough thrust to deflect an asteroid into a crash orbit. Besides, the last thing we need in NEO is even more small rubble. Like the junkyard in orbit around Earth, we can do without it.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

M.A.- That's right. "Mars isn't a testing ground for Mars."

So if we don't use the Moon for a testing ground, then where? Mars itself?

Are you suggesting that we "test" our skills for interplanetary colonization and settlement "as we go"? Like I said earlier, sounds impulsive and childish to me.

You better hope we get it "right" the first time. Because if it ends in disaster (and there are certainly no guarantees that it could not prove disasterous) then it will set back the manned-space program by half a century, as I said earlier.

While I'm not discounting the hard work and expertise of all the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program, we were very lucky that many things that could've gone wrong, didn't go wrong. But on a trip of millions of miles to and fro, we may well be pushing our luck.

 

[mental_avenger]

M.A.- That's right. "Mars isn't a testing ground for Mars."

So if we don't use the Moon for a testing ground, then where? Mars itself?

As I pointed out several times, a large stadium size testing facility here on Earth could safely and economically provide a valid testing ground for almost all equipment that will be used on any mission to any off-Earth location. We could test habitats, surface suits, CELSS, motorized vehicles, and resource extraction equipment. Because of the location, testing could be a LOT more thorough, and a LOT more rigorous for the same money, than could be done off Earth. Without the launch vehicles and fuel for the missions, testing equipment could easily be done up to 100 or even 1000 times less expensive. Without the time involved in launching, transit, landing, and deployment, testing could easily be done 100 or even 1000 times faster. And, without the risks involved with possible unforeseen failures off-Earth, testing would be far far safer.

Having said that, there are things which could not be tested in such a facility. Full sized spacecraft launching and landing, for instance, must be done out in the real world (or celestial body as the case may be). Very little of that testing would require human passengers. In such cases, sending robotic missions to the Moon would be a useful test of spacecraft and propulsion systems. Still, as has been pointed out, landing on Mars is far different from landing on the Moon, so Moon testing would be limited.

Robotic missions to Mars would be the only way to test the viability and reliability of soft landing on the surface. There simply is no substitute.

While I'm not discounting the hard work and expertise of all the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program, we were very lucky that many things that could've gone wrong, didn't go wrong. But on a trip of millions of miles to and fro, we may well be pushing our luck.

You are correct, we were lucky. But we were also willing to take a chance back then, and all the volunteers knew the risks. We made great strides in a very short time because we were willing to take the risks. Our space program has devolved into an attempt to be 100% safe before trying anything. Now we make few advances and few real achievements.

Burt Rutan has shown what can be done with creativity and guts. Put him in charge of our space program and we will be on the Moon and on Mars in 10 years.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

M.A.- I agree with your last paragraphs above. Americans have become too obsessed with "safety" in all walks of life, including our spacefaring activities. I myself have never been averse to risk-taking. After all, it's the risk takers that may lose a lot, but also gain a lot, and "failure" is actually a learning experience for the constructive and the daring.

So no argument here. America and Americans need to get their verve and nerve back. We sure seem to pride ourselves on our history of swashbuckling, pioneering guts and spirit. And I fear it has become more of a nostalgia than a reality, for many.

You don't become the richest, most powerful people on the planet by always "playing it safe". We need more Goddards and Pattons, Carnegies and Edisons!

And now, back to asteroid exploration on your local science blog!