Yeah, I'm really starting to feel that some people on this forum just hate the idea of exploring asteroids.. at all. I wonder if they've read any John S. Lewis, or otherwise understand the potential here.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/16/2013 12:43 amYeah, I'm really starting to feel that some people on this forum just hate the idea of exploring asteroids.. at all. I wonder if they've read any John S. Lewis, or otherwise understand the potential here.John who?If he doesn't subscribe to the Zubrin or Spudis doctrines, obviously some heretic.
why this thread is pinned to the top of the section! Anything else would be heresy?Lotta people on this forum understand the potential of asteroids. Most people, particularly policymakers, don't seem to understand that prioritizing tasks in space is crucial, and that easier things should be done first, so as to practice, practice, practice.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/03/2014 07:55 pm why this thread is pinned to the top of the section! Anything else would be heresy?Lotta people on this forum understand the potential of asteroids. Most people, particularly policymakers, don't seem to understand that prioritizing tasks in space is crucial, and that easier things should be done first, so as to practice, practice, practice.When Obama announced his asteroid-then-Mars plan, to me the concept for visiting an asteroid was more of demonstration that we could venture out that far plus do something while we were there. That the main goal was to demonstrate that we could operate part of the distance we had to go to get to Mars, which hopefully was paving the way for eventually traveling to Mars.When the Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) was announced, it didn't seem to address the need for learning how to operate at dramatically farther and farther distances. Instead it was more oriented towards pushing the boundaries of what we knew about asteroids. And in that regard there were likely better ways to do that than ARM.If the goal is Mars, and that has been the explicit goal since the VSE, then we need to be focusing on increasing our ability to confidently and competently operate at increasingly farther distances from Earth. Focusing too much on doing science at intermediate points distracts from that.
Two advertized rationales for HSF asteroid is to prove Orion in deep space, and because Obama uttered so. Two advertized difficulties for HSF asteroid is little to no abort modes, and no broad support in NASA or Congress. I would add two subordinate difficulties in that HSF asteroid gains no geopolitical return among space nations who are only at the capability of partnering in cis-lunar missions, and gains no public relations return among U.S. voters/taxpayers who have ultra low information on NASA and space. These factors operate in the presence of new space players...
I'd Love to see someone put up a fight that defends the audacity and virtue of an HSF asteroid mission across every metric.
imho Bolden admits that the ARM does not or barely satisfies science, sample and earth defense returns.
... and earth defense returns.
I haven't heard of detection as a rationale for HSF asteroid.