Quote from: AnalogMan on 03/17/2016 10:27 pmQuote from: jgoldader on 03/17/2016 06:52 pmQuote from: kenny008 on 03/17/2016 01:43 pmGreat article. I really wish they'd get rid of the "redirect" wording. We are not redirecting anything. We are retrieving a boulder. Calling it a redirect seems disingenuous. OderI thought they were going to try a gravity tractor experiment--was I mistaken or perhaps was it cancelled?[...]You are correct - a gravity tractor phase is still part of the mission concept.Yes, but I think you're missing my point. I don't think the mission is called Asteroid Redirect Mission because of the secondary objective of the gravity tractor test. The original idea was visiting an asteroid (Asteroid Rendevous Mission), then we shifted to bringing the asteroid to us (Redirect). Now we've descoped to retrieving a boulder off the asteroid. Am I remembering this wrong? Seems like we're keeping the Redirect name out of nostalgia, to stay with the original presidential directive of visiting an asteroid by 20xx.
Quote from: jgoldader on 03/17/2016 06:52 pmQuote from: kenny008 on 03/17/2016 01:43 pmGreat article. I really wish they'd get rid of the "redirect" wording. We are not redirecting anything. We are retrieving a boulder. Calling it a redirect seems disingenuous. OderI thought they were going to try a gravity tractor experiment--was I mistaken or perhaps was it cancelled?[...]You are correct - a gravity tractor phase is still part of the mission concept.
Quote from: kenny008 on 03/17/2016 01:43 pmGreat article. I really wish they'd get rid of the "redirect" wording. We are not redirecting anything. We are retrieving a boulder. Calling it a redirect seems disingenuous. OderI thought they were going to try a gravity tractor experiment--was I mistaken or perhaps was it cancelled?[...]
Great article. I really wish they'd get rid of the "redirect" wording. We are not redirecting anything. We are retrieving a boulder. Calling it a redirect seems disingenuous. Oder
Great article. I really wish they'd get rid of the "redirect" wording. We are not redirecting anything. We are retrieving a boulder. Calling it a redirect seems disingenuous.
It allows them to spend money on specific capabilities sequentially in order to prevent political sticker shock and to develop real experience doing BEO missions.
I do not really get all the negativity towards ARM.
Quote from: Blackout on 03/18/2016 02:14 amI do not really get all the negativity towards ARM.Well if you probe people on this they often say we should go directly to Mars or the Moon instead. They don't grasp the budget of this so comparatively tiny it is within the noise of those missions.The DSH is another good option that we really do need. Im guessing that is still around an order of magnitude more if just comparing hardware and not the SLS mission. A DSH presumably requires ongoing missions.
Good article, but what I found disturbing is with all this rigmarole, there will be 2 (two!) 4 hour EVAs? Is that really all? 16 man hours to justify how many billions in expenditure? When we could just pick the stuff up on Phobos? No lander required there...Sigh..p .
I do not really get all the negativity towards ARM. While we would all like the eventual manned landing on Mars to be as soon as possible, I think the current NASA approach (the Flexible Path approach) makes the most sense. It allows them to spend money on specific capabilities sequentially in order to prevent political sticker shock and to develop real experience doing BEO missions....
My problem is that there is no real need for crew with the chosen option. They mostly seem to be there for the ride.