Why a manned mission to an asteroid?

[bdewoody]

I too agree that we as a nation have become too timid. But because of this is another reason why (a) a manned mission to an asteroid will not happen in our lifetime and (b) a moon mission will be regarded as having a higher level of safety. It's about time this nation gets it's guts back and allows those who want to explore to take some risks. Explorers like Lingberg and Adm. Byrd. I salute that teenage girl that tried to sail around the world solo because at least she tried.

 

[mental_avenger]

Our society, especially in this country, is being coddled by a Nanny State that has been increasingly overprotecting the population. Warning labels on most products take up 3-4 times more room than the ingredients or instructions. Too many people are forgetting what it is like to take a real risk. Of course a few also overcompensate by taking great risks. The problem is, those risks are taken as extreme recreation, not exploration and true achievement. In fact, recreational risk takers are held up as heroes, while true adventurers are rarely mentioned.

If the choice is simply either going to the Moon or an asteroid for no other reason than to kickstart the space program, I agree that the Moon would be the better choice.

But there is another concern which, unfortunately, will probably never see any serious funding. That is developing the technologies and the infrastructure to protect the Earth against another K-T class impact. A single trip to an asteroid would not help that. It would require a network of solar orbiting satellites.

 

[neilsox]

Hi mental_avenger: Sorry, I missed your previous stadium testing suggestions. I have done some lab testing. Here we hold most of the variables steady, while we cycle one or two variable until failure occurs. ie We might bombard the unit with artificial moon or mars regolith until it fails. In a stadium the dust is uncontrolled, the temperature is uncontrolled. A stadium at the top of Mount Everest would be about the same as daytime temperature on Mars or twilight temperature on the moon, but most all the other variables would be quite to radically different. Neil

 

[mental_avenger]

Hi mental_avenger: Sorry, I missed your previous stadium testing suggestions. I have done some lab testing. Here we hold most of the variables steady, while we cycle one or two variable until failure occurs. ie We might bombard the unit with artificial moon or mars regolith until it fails. In a stadium the dust is uncontrolled, the temperature is uncontrolled. A stadium at the top of Mount Everest would be about the same as daytime temperature on Mars or twilight temperature on the moon, but most all the other variables would be quite to radically different. Neil

Please notice that I did not mention using a stadium. My previous posts proposed a “stadium-sized” testing facility where ALL of the conditions could be controlled except gravity. I mentioned that such a facility could be built for the cost of a single manned mission to the Moon. Imagine a facility the size of the Astrodome where the climate could be controlled to simulate the Moon, or Mars, or anywhere else we might want to eventually go. For the vast majority of the tests, gravity would not be an issue. Having 9 acres to test spacecraft, rovers, space suits and habitats would allow many different tests to be performed at the same time in relative safety.

Or perhaps several smaller facilities, 200-300 feet in diameter would be more efficient.

 

[orionrider]

That is developing the technologies and the infrastructure to protect the Earth against another K-T class impact.

The probability of such an impact in the next 100 years is close to zero. Besides, we already know many of the likely culprits and none poses a significant short-term risk.
If a killer asteroid is detected in more than 100 years, the capability to deflect it will likely exist as a spin-off of general progress. So, using the risk of impact to justify going to an asteroid is in fact cheap BS.

They could have designed a mission to test the hardware in empty space, but the public would not support that. An asteroid gives a sense of 'destination' and can even advance Science, like the knowledge of how the SS formed, how old it is, etc. But it's only the cherry on the cake, not the real goal of the exercise.

 

[mental_avenger]

The probability of such an impact in the next 100 years is close to zero. Besides, we already know many of the likely culprits and none poses a significant short-term risk.

But it is also possible that an asteroid or comet could blind side us next week. Also, the orbits of well known periodic asteroids and comets can be disturbed when they are out beyond our detection, turning likely culprits into K-T class threats in one orbit. Such an impact has a very high probability of wiping out the majority of life on Earth, and a significant probability of making mankind extinct.

If a killer asteroid is detected in more than 100 years, the capability to deflect it will likely exist as a spin-off of general progress. So, using the risk of impact to justify going to an asteroid is in fact cheap BS.

And calling my suggestion “cheap BS” is self-righteous crap. Why don’t you stick to discussing the subject rather than personal attacks.

They could have designed a mission to test the hardware in empty space, but the public would not support that. An asteroid gives a sense of 'destination' and can even advance Science, like the knowledge of how the SS formed, how old it is, etc. But it's only the cherry on the cake, not the real goal of the exercise

More information on how our Solar System was formed would be of relatively little value compared to setting up a defense against an asteroid impact. The science fiction scenarios of sending a space shuttle out to destroy an asteroid in the nick of time are unrealistic drama.

Of course there is another way to deal with a possible asteroid or comet impact.

 

[orionrider]

calling my suggestion

It was not a personal attack about your suggestion, my comment was about politicians using the 'asteroid threat' to justify going to an asteroid when in fact that is not even the primary goal of the mission. The primary goal of the mission is to demonstrate that the new hardware is capable of beyond Earth orbit operations, with delta-v manoeuvers relevant to a Mars mission. That the destination is an asteroid is just a nice bonus.

But it is also possible that an asteroid or comet could blind side us next week.

Very, very, very unlikely that such a large object happens to cross our path AND that we haven't seen it. It reinforces the point that the money would better be invested in detection and computer models than in deflection strategies.

Also, the orbits of well known periodic asteroids and comets can be disturbed when they are out beyond our detection, turning likely culprits into K-T class threats in one orbit.

Also very unlikely. The best thing we can do is to improve the sky survey and computer models since a K/T object cannot be deflected with less than 1 year advance notice, high tech or not.

Of course there is another way to deal with a possible asteroid or comet impact.

Now that you mention it, the 'ostrich algorithm' is sometimes the best way to deal with exceedingly rare events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_algorithm

At this point, setting up a defense against an asteroid impact is premature, like sending a probe to Proxima Centauris. It would arrive thousands of years after the faster probes sent in a few hundred years, so it's just wasted efforts.

 

[kelvinzero]

IMO the best defense against asteroids is to move with all practical speed towards becoming an interplanetary civilization:

In the shortest term, our best defense is to be able to survive on earth in artificial environments if the biosphere is decimated. We should also work at developing better detection, sure, but it will probably not help in the short term.

In the medium term our best defense is a substantial off-planet industry that could produce something large enough to move an asteroid in time, assuming we have developed that better detection also.

In the longer term, the only truly robust defense is to not keep all our eggs in one basket. Not saying we shouldnt try everything else first, but we could run out of luck and simply not have a hope of averting the one that counts.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Since major, catastrophic, biosphere disrupting impactors collide with the Earth about once every 26 million years, that's not something we should be too worried about, IMO.

The genus homo has only been around for a few million years. And while a serious impactor could collide in the next 10,000 years, it is highly unlikely.

 

[mental_avenger]

It was not a personal attack about your suggestion, my comment was about politicians using the 'asteroid threat' to justify going to an asteroid when in fact that is not even the primary goal of the mission.

I’m not aware of any politicians doing so.

Very, very, very unlikely that such a large object happens to cross our path AND that we haven't seen it.

We detect asteroids and comets at relatively short distances by observing the lateral component of the movement of their faint image in successive frames. If the lateral component relative to us is very small, and the radial component is large, we may not see the object until it is very close, if at all. If it isn’t one of the periodic bodies, or if it is a periodic body whose orbit has been sufficiently disturbed, we won’t be looking for it. The point is that today, even if we had years to prepare, there is nothing we could do to prevent an impact. It is possible that even with a detection system in solar orbit, we might only have months to prepare.

This is the first time in the history of planet Earth, that the inhabitants have the ability to prepare a defense against another K-T impactor. It isn’t a matter of if one will hit Earth, it is a matter of when. And that could be any time.

Also very unlikely. The best thing we can do is to improve the sky survey and computer models since a K/T object cannot be deflected with less than 1 year advance notice, high tech or not.

That is why we would have to put detection networks in Solar orbit, out beyond Mars, and distributed so that we can detect any likely candidate, not just the ones we can see from Earth.

Now that you mention it, the 'ostrich algorithm' is sometimes the best way to deal with exceedingly rare events.

The problem is that with computers, the worst that can happen is loss of data. With a K-T impact, the worst that could happen is the end of mankind.

At this point, setting up a defense against an asteroid impact is premature, like sending a probe to Proxima Centauris. It would arrive thousands of years after the faster probes sent in a few hundred years, so it's just wasted efforts

Using that line of thinking, we are currently wasting our time even looking for asteroids. Most of our advances in science have been using current technology to its best advantage.

 

[mental_avenger]

Since major, catastrophic, biosphere disrupting impactors collide with the Earth about once every 26 million years, that's not something we should be too worried about, IMO.

The genus homo has only been around for a few million years. And while a serious impactor could collide in the next 10,000 years, it is highly unlikely.

But if there is already a large object currently on a collision course with Earth, the chances of impact are currently 100%.