"not going extinct" has compelling practical applications.
Quote from: arachnitect on 02/12/2016 12:52 am"not going extinct" has compelling practical applications.Yes, and if the asteroid redirect mission were going to -- you know -- actually redirect an asteroid, it would be ever more compelling! But returning a boulder from an asteroid, while it might meet the science objectives, wouldn't help so much on the "not going extinct" front.
However the secondary mission of having humans visit the astroid while it orbits the moon, that mission seems useless to me. That is just an excuse to give Orion and SLS a mission.
Bagging a whole asteroid would make a snappier headline, but that approach ("Option A") is challenging to scale up to planetary defense size.ARRM would be a chance to try Ion Beam or Gravity Tractor deflection at a meaningful scale.
Quote from: arachnitect on 02/12/2016 02:29 amBagging a whole asteroid would make a snappier headline, but that approach ("Option A") is challenging to scale up to planetary defense size.ARRM would be a chance to try Ion Beam or Gravity Tractor deflection at a meaningful scale.Fair enough. If either of these deflection techniques were tested in an "Option B" mission it would be more than mildly interesting. Perhaps I am too cynical in thinking that deflection would be de-scoped before the actual mission was launched....
Quote from: sdsds on 02/12/2016 01:09 amQuote from: arachnitect on 02/12/2016 12:52 am"not going extinct" has compelling practical applications.Yes, and if the asteroid redirect mission were going to -- you know -- actually redirect an asteroid, it would be ever more compelling! But returning a boulder from an asteroid, while it might meet the science objectives, wouldn't help so much on the "not going extinct" front.Bagging a whole asteroid would make a snappier headline, but that approach ("Option A") is challenging to scale up to planetary defense size.ARRM would be a chance to try Ion Beam or Gravity Tractor deflection at a meaningful scale. Operating a multi ton spacecraft with 30 meter solar arrays in close proximity to an asteroid is going to be a learning experience no matter what happens. We don't actually have much experience operating close to small bodies, and those few experiences haven't gone entirely well.
Is the astroid return mission dead ? It makes sense that it will be killed next year. Nobody is really enthusiastic about it.http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/nasas-asteroid-mission-isnt-deadyet/QuoteAfter studying the problem, NASA engineers concluded they didn’t have the tools or the budget to mount a human mission to an asteroid. They couldn’t even come close to the 2025 date. So NASA kludged a solution that became known as the asteroid retrieval mission, or ARM.Under this plan the agency would send a robotic spacecraft out into the Solar System, grab an SUV-sized boulder off the surface of an asteroid, and bring it back to the vicinity of the Moon. Astronauts would then visit it in 2025. Technically, this still met Obama’s goal. But it was an unhappy solution for most involved, and it wasn’t clear how this brought the agency much closer to its ultimate destination of Mars.Ars reached out to one space industry veteran who listened to Radzanowski’s presentation for clarification. This politically connected analyst, who did not want to damage his reputation with NASA, offered a blunt explanation for Radzanowski’s asteroid comments: “Oh come on, these poor guys are just trying to get through one more budget release with a shred of dignity intact knowing it’s all in the crapper next year.”That seems an all too realistic possibility. Congress has been lukewarm in its support of the asteroid mission, at best. Many scientists who study asteroids have said it doesn’t contribute much to their field of work. And it doesn’t seem likely a new president will embrace a “near-term” mission that won’t be completed during his or her administration.One former senior NASA official who has retained contacts within the agency’s Washington DC headquarters said NASA is unlikely to go to bat for the asteroid mission with the next president. “Nobody believes in the ARM mission,” this source told Ars. “When the boss says go make this happen, you have to jump. That’s part of the deal. But deep in their hearts, is anybody really sold on ARM? I don’t think so.”
After studying the problem, NASA engineers concluded they didn’t have the tools or the budget to mount a human mission to an asteroid. They couldn’t even come close to the 2025 date. So NASA kludged a solution that became known as the asteroid retrieval mission, or ARM.Under this plan the agency would send a robotic spacecraft out into the Solar System, grab an SUV-sized boulder off the surface of an asteroid, and bring it back to the vicinity of the Moon. Astronauts would then visit it in 2025. Technically, this still met Obama’s goal. But it was an unhappy solution for most involved, and it wasn’t clear how this brought the agency much closer to its ultimate destination of Mars.Ars reached out to one space industry veteran who listened to Radzanowski’s presentation for clarification. This politically connected analyst, who did not want to damage his reputation with NASA, offered a blunt explanation for Radzanowski’s asteroid comments: “Oh come on, these poor guys are just trying to get through one more budget release with a shred of dignity intact knowing it’s all in the crapper next year.”That seems an all too realistic possibility. Congress has been lukewarm in its support of the asteroid mission, at best. Many scientists who study asteroids have said it doesn’t contribute much to their field of work. And it doesn’t seem likely a new president will embrace a “near-term” mission that won’t be completed during his or her administration.One former senior NASA official who has retained contacts within the agency’s Washington DC headquarters said NASA is unlikely to go to bat for the asteroid mission with the next president. “Nobody believes in the ARM mission,” this source told Ars. “When the boss says go make this happen, you have to jump. That’s part of the deal. But deep in their hearts, is anybody really sold on ARM? I don’t think so.”
Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 02/11/2016 06:47 pmIs the astroid return mission dead ? It makes sense that it will be killed next year. Nobody is really enthusiastic about it.http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/nasas-asteroid-mission-isnt-deadyet/QuoteAfter studying the problem, NASA engineers concluded they didn’t have the tools or the budget to mount a human mission to an asteroid. They couldn’t even come close to the 2025 date. So NASA kludged a solution that became known as the asteroid retrieval mission, or ARM.Under this plan the agency would send a robotic spacecraft out into the Solar System, grab an SUV-sized boulder off the surface of an asteroid, and bring it back to the vicinity of the Moon. Astronauts would then visit it in 2025. Technically, this still met Obama’s goal. But it was an unhappy solution for most involved, and it wasn’t clear how this brought the agency much closer to its ultimate destination of Mars.Ars reached out to one space industry veteran who listened to Radzanowski’s presentation for clarification. This politically connected analyst, who did not want to damage his reputation with NASA, offered a blunt explanation for Radzanowski’s asteroid comments: “Oh come on, these poor guys are just trying to get through one more budget release with a shred of dignity intact knowing it’s all in the crapper next year.”That seems an all too realistic possibility. Congress has been lukewarm in its support of the asteroid mission, at best. Many scientists who study asteroids have said it doesn’t contribute much to their field of work. And it doesn’t seem likely a new president will embrace a “near-term” mission that won’t be completed during his or her administration.One former senior NASA official who has retained contacts within the agency’s Washington DC headquarters said NASA is unlikely to go to bat for the asteroid mission with the next president. “Nobody believes in the ARM mission,” this source told Ars. “When the boss says go make this happen, you have to jump. That’s part of the deal. But deep in their hearts, is anybody really sold on ARM? I don’t think so.”Dumb article.1) demonstrates enhanced gravity tractor technique and overall maneuvering around an asteroid2) demonstrates SEP3) demonstrates techniques for extraction of significant amounts of asteroid material4) allows high amount of sample return, orders of magnitude more than other missions (which by themselves cost a lot of money). This doesn't make it a substitute for Osiris-Rex, but definitely would be helpful.5) puts a big rock in lunar orbit, a perfect low-latency testbed for real asteroid mining, significantly accelerating the capability to mine asteroids6) is a heck of a lot better than just a crewed mission to an empty point in space7) Potentially the vehicle could be reused again for commercial uses Could work for Phobos or Deimos, too. Perhaps even the same vehicle. This would allow Phobos/Deimos ISRU and a perfect stepping stone to Mars.ARM is a good idea, and it has gotten even better since it started. It's one idea that people don't like because it's new and they didn't anticipate it, so they find no actual reason why it's a bad idea, just making appeals to popularity. It's no one's old hobby horse, like the Moon and Mars are.My /personal/ view is that I'm sold on it, and I work at NASA. I count as an "anybody." So that "former senior NASA official" (which sounds like Griffin?) is demonstrably wrong.
Dumb article.1) demonstrates enhanced gravity tractor technique and overall maneuvering around an asteroid2) demonstrates SEP3) demonstrates techniques for extraction of significant amounts of asteroid material4) allows high amount of sample return, orders of magnitude more than other missions (which by themselves cost a lot of money). This doesn't make it a substitute for Osiris-Rex, but definitely would be helpful.5) puts a big rock in lunar orbit, a perfect low-latency testbed for real asteroid mining, significantly accelerating the capability to mine asteroids6) is a heck of a lot better than just a crewed mission to an empty point in space7) Potentially the vehicle could be reused again for commercial uses8.) Could work for Phobos or Deimos, too. Perhaps even the same vehicle. This would allow Phobos/Deimos ISRU and a perfect stepping stone to Mars.
ARM is a good idea, and it has gotten even better since it started. It's one idea that people don't like because it's new and they didn't anticipate it, so they find no actual reason why it's a bad idea, just making appeals to popularity. It's no one's old hobby horse, like the Moon and Mars are.
My /personal/ view is that I'm sold on it, and I work at NASA. I count as an "anybody." So that "former senior NASA official" (which sounds like Griffin?) is demonstrably wrong.
{snip}It does develop new technologies, and it is a challenging goal. No doubt about that. But if NASA's #1 HSF goal is Mars, then the ARM is not on the critical path for that. Not sure how you change that perception...
It does develop new technologies, and it is a challenging goal. No doubt about that. But if NASA's #1 HSF goal is Mars, then the ARM is not on the critical path for that. Not sure how you change that perception...
Could work for Phobos or Deimos, too. Perhaps even the same vehicle. This would allow Phobos/Deimos ISRU and a perfect stepping stone to Mars.ARM is a good idea, and it has gotten even better since it started. It's one idea that people don't like because it's new and they didn't anticipate it, so they find no actual reason why it's a bad idea, just making appeals to popularity. It's no one's old hobby horse, like the Moon and Mars are.My /personal/ view is that I'm sold on it, and I work at NASA. I count as an "anybody." So that "former senior NASA official" (which sounds like Griffin?) is demonstrably wrong.
I think the robotic aspects of ARM are pretty cool. But the idea of dragging a rock halfway across the solar system robotically and then sending a crew to cover the last 400,000 km seems daft. It does make some sense, however, if you're operating under the dual constraints of 1) having to use Orion/SLS for something, while 2) not having the budget for landers and the other in-space elements needed for serious lunar or Martian exploration.
1) Do we need this to go to Mars?2) But there other ways to demonstrate SEP3) Is extraction of significant amounts of asteroid material needed by NASA to get to Mars?4) Is sample return needed by NASA to get to Mars?5) Can't this be done by NASA contracting with the private sector? I.E. why NASA?6) This is a low bar, and one that only applies to the SLS and Orion - which aren't needed anyways.7) Admirable, but is it likely? And would this be an official goal?
ARM didn't start as just a way to find something to do with SLS. MAYBE that's why it got traction (unsure of that), but that has never been the actual justification for it.