Author Topic: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept  (Read 264923 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #60 on: 07/03/2013 06:51 pm »
New thread, you guys.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #61 on: 07/03/2013 06:52 pm »
Even solar thermal engines need a throat and nozzle.  A weird shaped combustion chamber can lead to instabilities.  So just heating a rock is unlikely to work very well.

Having a drill convert the asteroid into a powder that is feed into the engine may work.  This can be tested on Earth.

 Here's a pretty good reference http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2011/01/26/city-tech-research-team-casts-light-on-asteroid-deflection/ in which the idea was tested at Marshall. A throat and nozzle give a 40% or so advantage IIRC but by controlling the focus perhaps you could carve a nozzle as you thrust.
 At any rate, if instead of 6,000 kg. of Xenon you had that mass as a 10KW/kg mirror system that would be 60 MW for producing thrust. Compared to Keck it could move 180 x 60,000/40 = 27,000 times more mass per unit time. The system is likely to have even higher specific power and efficiency than this.

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #62 on: 07/03/2013 06:57 pm »
New thread, you guys.

 I believe my above response is relevant to the ARM in that it gives context.
ISRU is the best reason to retrieve an asteroid so using a simpler cheaper much more robust system that uses it from the start is a better way to go (and this is especially true for planetary defense) IMO. YMMV

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #63 on: 07/03/2013 09:04 pm »
New thread, you guys.

 I believe my above response is relevant to the ARM in that it gives context.
ISRU is the best reason to retrieve an asteroid so using a simpler cheaper much more robust system that uses it from the start is a better way to go (and this is especially true for planetary defense) IMO. YMMV
No, it's not because the concept is near-term (have to start building it very, very soon). Yours is more of an advanced concepts idea. Electric propulsion is quite mature right now, even if the exact thruster make may not have flown yet.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #64 on: 07/05/2013 12:50 pm »
Quote
Does any one have an estimate on how much Xenon costs per KG?

About $1200. Google is your friend, if you use it. 12,000 kg X $1200 / kg is $14.4 million. Fuel (or in this case, reaction mass) is cheap compared to the other costs of a space mission. Still, using Argon would save a few million dollars. At $5.00 per kg, 12,000 kg of Ar comes in at $60,000.
According to Wikipedia Xenon production is 5-7,000m3 per year, which equates to about 35 tons. A single order for 12 tons might push up the price by a lot given production rates are determined by the much bigger market of oxygen/nitrogen distillation.

Any more news on this mission?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #65 on: 07/05/2013 01:19 pm »
According to Wikipedia Xenon production is 5-7,000m3 per year, which equates to about 35 tons. A single order for 12 tons might push up the price by a lot given production rates are determined by the much bigger market of oxygen/nitrogen distillation.

Actually, more likely the opposite. NASA would dump a shed-load of money into a Xenon production facility and then the inevitable unused production would be sold on the open market, more supply for the same demand = lower prices.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #66 on: 07/06/2013 04:34 pm »
But Xenon is produced from liquification of air, which leads to vastly greater quantities of Nitrogen, Argon and other Noble gases. The market for the other gases is much greater than that for Xenon.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #67 on: 07/06/2013 09:39 pm »
To get that much Xenon on the ARM spacecraft it must spiral out from LEO.

This mission would take a long time and you need to include the cost of detection and discovery.

The spacecraft will not cost $2.4b. That's with lots of freebies.

This is a hugely expensive mission which will leave SLS waiting around without a rock to visit.

Then there's the risk that a rock can't be grappled as many asteroids might be mostly dust and pebbles.

It's cheaper to just build the DSH and send humans out to visit a rock.

This is just a big excuse not to start development on a DSH.

If NASA delays long enough they will never get a DSH because once Bolden is gone the Moon firsters will want a Lunar Lander.

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #68 on: 07/07/2013 12:58 am »
According to Wikipedia Xenon production is 5-7,000m3 per year, which equates to about 35 tons. A single order for 12 tons might push up the price by a lot given production rates are determined by the much bigger market of oxygen/nitrogen distillation.
Any more news on this mission?

Man, that's a large portion of the Xenon market! Any ideas on who NASA is buying from? They should start stockpiling!
Clayton Birchenough

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #69 on: 07/07/2013 08:31 pm »
New thread, you guys.

 I believe my above response is relevant to the ARM in that it gives context.
ISRU is the best reason to retrieve an asteroid so using a simpler cheaper much more robust system that uses it from the start is a better way to go (and this is especially true for planetary defense) IMO. YMMV
No, it's not because the concept is near-term (have to start building it very, very soon). Yours is more of an advanced concepts idea. Electric propulsion is quite mature right now, even if the exact thruster make may not have flown yet.

 The actual Keck spacecraft asteroid capture mechanism has not even been built much less tested on orbit. The alternate idea of using concentrated sunlight does not even require a capture mechanism.
 
 A smallsat or perhaps even nanosat size spacecraft has potentially a much faster lead time for development.
 
 The concentrated sunlight idea has been tested on-orbit in a sense in that it involves mirrors and every spy sat has used them. Admittedly these do not focus sunlight but there is sure a lot of similarity in aiming a camera through a mirror and focusing sunlight on an asteroid.

A large low mass concentrator/antenna has been tested on STS-77.
The Keck tech will not provide planetary defense and because SEP is stretched to the limit to do it at all there will be many years of delay while a small enough target is found.
 
 Keck can suffer a single point failure and the entire mission is lost. A swarm of smallsats will be able to carry out the mission even if several spacecraft fail.

 The concentrator alternative has much more thrust meaning it has a much larger number of targets and can handle much larger asteroids. It can also bring the targets back in much less time.

 Once the design is perfected after the first mission or two the asteroid miners can be mass produced and launched on any launch vehicle as primary or secondary payloads. These will become a planetary defense system and mining system as well.
 
 To my thinking it is the Keck study concept vehicle that is high risk and low payoff as well.


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #70 on: 07/08/2013 01:31 pm »
The actual Keck spacecraft asteroid capture mechanism has not even been built much less tested on orbit.

The bag is assumed to be at TRL-6.

Quote from: the Keck Paper
Assumes all technologies are at TRL Level 6 -- the estimate does not include any cost for technology development up to TRL 6.

The experts wouldn't make these assumptions if they were unwarranted.  Please let the experts do their work.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #71 on: 07/08/2013 05:30 pm »
The actual Keck spacecraft asteroid capture mechanism has not even been built much less tested on orbit.

The bag is assumed to be at TRL-6.

Quote from: the Keck Paper
Assumes all technologies are at TRL Level 6 -- the estimate does not include any cost for technology development up to TRL 6.

The experts wouldn't make these assumptions if they were unwarranted.  Please let the experts do their work.

When an item reaches TRL-6 it is normally filmed being used.  I would like to see the video of the bag being tested, it could be fun to watch.

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #72 on: 07/11/2013 12:13 am »
The actual Keck spacecraft asteroid capture mechanism has not even been built much less tested on orbit.

The bag is assumed to be at TRL-6.

Quote from: the Keck Paper
Assumes all technologies are at TRL Level 6 -- the estimate does not include any cost for technology development up to TRL 6.

The experts wouldn't make these assumptions if they were unwarranted.  Please let the experts do their work.

 I appreciate the humor.
Seriously though I think that technical risk is a more useful consideration - in other words how difficult and time consuming is the development likely to be and not necessarily how developed it already is.
 After all the whole ARM is itself an advanced concept and therefore it likely requires advanced tech for best results.
 To me the choice is planetary defense and asteroid mining or a one off stunt.

BTW if you can move asteroids, even big ones, around as a few thousand of these mirror equipped craft are brought on line, smashing some into the poles of Mars could begin terraforming.
Of course that raises a host of other issues so maybe slamming a few thousand smaller ones into the equatorial region of the Moon to give it a shorter day and atmosphere and ocean.
 Point being real asteroid retrieval using ISRU gives humanity an unprecedented control over the inner solar system. We will be able to move mountains and create new worlds.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 1591
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #74 on: 08/26/2013 08:51 pm »
According to Wikipedia Xenon production is 5-7,000m3 per year, which equates to about 35 tons. A single order for 12 tons might push up the price by a lot given production rates are determined by the much bigger market of oxygen/nitrogen distillation.
Any more news on this mission?

Man, that's a large portion of the Xenon market! Any ideas on who NASA is buying from? They should start stockpiling!

You are correct.  We were told it will take about 1/3 of the world's supply of Xenon to fully load the spacecraft.  It'll take two years to produce, transport, and stored in a refrigerated tank at KSC.  It is a US company, but I can't say who.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #75 on: 08/26/2013 09:58 pm »
According to Wikipedia Xenon production is 5-7,000m3 per year, which equates to about 35 tons. A single order for 12 tons might push up the price by a lot given production rates are determined by the much bigger market of oxygen/nitrogen distillation.
Any more news on this mission?

Man, that's a large portion of the Xenon market! Any ideas on who NASA is buying from? They should start stockpiling!

You are correct.  We were told it will take about 1/3 of the world's supply of Xenon to fully load the spacecraft.  It'll take two years to produce, transport, and stored in a refrigerated tank at KSC.  It is a US company, but I can't say who.
But the Xenon market isn't an enormous market anyway. And a nitpick: The world has a nearly unlimited /supply/ of Xenon, but currently we only produce a small amount of it per year (and this can be expanded).

I talked to the folks who put together the spacecraft conceptual design (at GRC), and they addressed the issue and really didn't think it'd be any kind of showstopper. Does that fit with what you understand, KSC Sage?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #76 on: 09/02/2013 07:52 pm »
Rich Dissly from Ball Aerospace presented a summary of July's Target NEO2 Workshop (http://targetneo.jhuapl.edu/) last week for the Future In-Space Operations colloquium.

Here's a link:

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Dissly_8-28-13/

I would suggest that just about anybody who wants to discuss this topic should probably go and watch that summary, unless he or she is already an expert.

There's a cool slide from Gerstenmaier's presentation that evaluates where ISS and an asteroid mission are expected to take us as a fraction of what we need to know to go to Mars.  It's kind of a nice way of graphing a nebulous topic.

A few highlights:

- Final target wouldn't be identified until 2016, which introduces a lot of program risk.
- The more we look, the more potential targets we find.
- It's tough to know whether we're targeting a rock or a group of rocks.
- ARM targets potentially number in the tens of thousands of metric tons!
- One end-to-end study presentation said 500 tons to Earth-Moon capture orbit is doable with 8 tons of xenon and 40kW SEP in six years.

It was mentioned that this is more of a technology demonstration than exploration.  As such it would be the largest such tech demo NASA has ever done, to my knowledge.  But as a demonstration it has the potential to lay the foundation for true commercial space mining. The rewards are huge.

I picture launching a bag miner every year for the first few years.  As they begin to arrive at some future refining station, we start ramping up the number of miners we send out, so that we have a steady stream of material arriving. 

Construction of O'Neill colonies begins about ten years from now...  :)
« Last Edit: 09/02/2013 07:53 pm by daveklingler »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #77 on: 09/02/2013 10:44 pm »
It was mentioned that this is more of a technology demonstration than exploration.  As such it would be the largest such tech demo NASA has ever done, to my knowledge.  But as a demonstration it has the potential to lay the foundation for true commercial space mining. The rewards are huge.

There are simply no current rewards for this technology demonstration, at least in the literal meaning of the present tense.  There are NO rewards.

Retrieving an object of random composition based solely upon the convenience of its delta-vee and its orbital characteristics is not how mining is done, or will be done.

Although I see that you used a "smiley".
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #78 on: 09/02/2013 10:52 pm »
Retrieving an object of random composition based solely upon the convenience of its delta-vee and its orbital characteristics is not how mining is done, or will be done.

Umm.. retrieving ores solely upon the convenience of doing so is how mining has been done for thousands of years.

See a penny, pick it up.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept
« Reply #79 on: 09/03/2013 01:41 am »
For planetary defence purposes this is definitely a technology demonstrator.  If the ARRM can handle 10 metre asteroids a defence spacecraft able to handle say 40 metre asteroids is likely to be at least 4 times the size.

I suggest including in the report a picture of a defence catcher with a net 4 times the diameter, 4 times the number of engines and 4 sets of solar panels.  Larger ion engines and solar panels are underdevelopment but are several years away.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1