I didn't like how they harped on how important the manned mission to NEOs was to deflecting NEOs. We've already sent probes to NEOs
Quote from: mlindner on 03/22/2013 08:42 pmI didn't like how they harped on how important the manned mission to NEOs was to deflecting NEOs. We've already sent probes to NEOsand they returned information that was basically inconclusive. We know what questions we should have been asking as a result of sending probes to NEOs, but we've yet to answer those questions. After a dozen iterations or so we might know enough to sensibly talk about deflection. Sending human investigators will get much better data and a lot faster.
What that implies is that if they share common characteristics, then there may be many different types, meaning that the best way to gather data is to go to a lot of them. You cannot do that with people.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/23/2013 12:59 amWhat that implies is that if they share common characteristics, then there may be many different types, meaning that the best way to gather data is to go to a lot of them. You cannot do that with people.Yes, they need to go to all the different types.Why does it always have to be an either/or question when it comes to humans vs robotic?You get different data from each. I wasn't claiming you could do without the robotic probes, but mlindner was claiming you could do without sending humans. No-one can sensibly claim that any number of today's probes will return the kind of data we'd get from sending humans. When discussing Mars, the answer is often given: build better robots, or wait until AI is available (yeah right). The implication being that there's no rush. When talking about planetary defense, that logic simply doesn't work. We need all the available data, and as quickly as practical.
Huh? Pray, what information can a human gain by being there that a probe with multispectral imagery and spectroscopy can't get?
Yes, they need to go to all the different types.Why does it always have to be an either/or question when it comes to humans vs robotic?You get different data from each. I wasn't claiming you could do without the robotic probes, but mlindner was claiming you could do without sending humans. No-one can sensibly claim that any number of today's probes will return the kind of data we'd get from sending humans. When discussing Mars, the answer is often given: build better robots, or wait until AI is available (yeah right). The implication being that there's no rush. When talking about planetary defense, that logic simply doesn't work. We need all the available data, and as quickly as practical.
"However, if human missions to NEOs are conducted in the future, the committee recommends that their scientific aspects be maximized to provide data useful for their characterization."
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/03/21/combating-the-perception-of-a-lack-of-consensus/“That’s what the President told us to do, and that’s what the Congress told us to do,” [Bolden] said of the 2025 asteroid mission. “And it’s also something that I think is important, and I’m the NASA administrator. It is the right thing to do.”[Comments]QuoteEgadMarch 21, 2013 at 9:13 am · Reply Just to be clear, did you (Jeff) take Mr. Bolden to mean that NASA’s HSF activities are aimed toward an asteroid visit ca. 2025? And that we should be interpreting what they’ve said about crewed SLS flights (EM-3 and EM-4) in that timeframe (2023 and 2025) in that light? What about the first cargo flight in 2029?QuoteJeff FoustMarch 21, 2013 at 9:25 am Yes, Bolden was clear that a human asteroid mission by 2025 was a current goal of NASA. He did not discuss yesterday specifics about how to achieve that goal beyond the development of SLS and Orion.
EgadMarch 21, 2013 at 9:13 am · Reply Just to be clear, did you (Jeff) take Mr. Bolden to mean that NASA’s HSF activities are aimed toward an asteroid visit ca. 2025? And that we should be interpreting what they’ve said about crewed SLS flights (EM-3 and EM-4) in that timeframe (2023 and 2025) in that light? What about the first cargo flight in 2029?
Jeff FoustMarch 21, 2013 at 9:25 am Yes, Bolden was clear that a human asteroid mission by 2025 was a current goal of NASA. He did not discuss yesterday specifics about how to achieve that goal beyond the development of SLS and Orion.
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-no-lack-of-consensus-on-nasas-stragetic-directionBolden: No Lack of Consensus on NASA's Strategic DirectionLaura M. DelgadoPosted: 22-Mar-2013Updated: 22-Mar-2013 05:41 PM<snip>In response to a criticism that has been made since the goal was announced that the specific destination asteroid has not been named, Bolden said that when President Kennedy announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade, he did not say they would land on the Sea of Tranquility. "I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2013/03/20/bolden-addresses-hearing-asteroid-threats/A U.S House of Representatives hearing was held March 19th, 2013 covering the recently popular subject of asteroids and meteorite strikes.The hearing, titled "Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors", was held before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.The text below is an excerpt from a prepared statement from NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden.<snip>QuoteFinally, NASA is working to accomplish an astronaut visit to an asteroid by 2025. This mission, and the vital precursor activities that will be necessary to ensure its success, should result in additional insight into the nature and composition of NEOs and will increase our capability to approach and interact with asteroids.
Finally, NASA is working to accomplish an astronaut visit to an asteroid by 2025. This mission, and the vital precursor activities that will be necessary to ensure its success, should result in additional insight into the nature and composition of NEOs and will increase our capability to approach and interact with asteroids.
Pray, what information can a human gain by being there that a probe with multispectral imagery and spectroscopy can't get? (Don't mention sample return, a robot can do that too, it just hasn't been done yet.)
During the hearing, Holdren referred on a number of occasions to this book:http://www.amazon.com/Near-Earth-Objects-Finding-Them-Before/dp/0691149291/
I don't see how that can possibly be true, but if it is, I hope that some thought is being given to maximizing those scientific aspects.
Quote from: ChileVerde on 03/23/2013 01:17 pmI don't see how that can possibly be true, but if it is, I hope that some thought is being given to maximizing those scientific aspects.There are actually a couple of more important steps before that one.
Yeah, as simonbp put it succinctly in another thread, just spend a day or two examining the asteroid spectroscopically to figure out where you need to sample, and then collect the samples. Astronauts won't add much except for a lot of costs and constraints. Big bodies like Ceres and Vesta might be different, but for this purpose lots of robotic probes are the way to go.
Statement of Dr. John P. HoldrenDirector, Office of Science and Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the President of the United Statesto theCommittee on Science, Space, and TechnologyUnited States House of RepresentativesonMarch 19, 2013<snip>And of course NASA is committed to carrying out the President's goal of conducting a human mission to an asteroid by 2025. That mission will benefit from current efforts to detect, track, and characterize NEOs by speeding the identification of potential targets for exploration. And in return, such a mission will generate invaluable information for use in future detection and mitigation efforts.
The best way to get to an asteroid is to invest in detection.That way mission options open.So are they funding detector spacecraft or are they just promising a NEA mission in around 15 years when they're all retired and it's not their problem?
Quote from: Proponent on 03/23/2013 01:52 pmYeah, as simonbp put it succinctly in another thread, just spend a day or two examining the asteroid spectroscopically to figure out where you need to sample, and then collect the samples. Astronauts won't add much except for a lot of costs and constraints. Big bodies like Ceres and Vesta might be different, but for this purpose lots of robotic probes are the way to go.What's your time frame? There's currently neither the robotic sophistication nor the human spaceflight capability to do that.
Robotic spacecraft will always be better than humans at scientific data gathering, mostly because of the multiplicative effect. If you send a human, only that human gets to gather that information. Whereas with complex imagery and complex sensors you can spread the information over a wealth of scientists.
Asteroid sample return has been demonstrated on a very small scale by Habayusa. Making that work better and on a larger scale and applying it to many NEAs is certainly going to be much cheaper and faster than than sending humans to a similar number of NEAs.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/25/2013 01:41 pmAsteroid sample return has been demonstrated on a very small scale by Habayusa. Making that work better and on a larger scale and applying it to many NEAs is certainly going to be much cheaper and faster than than sending humans to a similar number of NEAs... and?You're making a tradeoff that isn't on the table. I don't know why people insist on having the humans vs robots argument.. there's never going to be a magical feat of logic that causes human spaceflight funding to shift to robotic exploration.
I expect no such shift. I'm just pointing out that if learning enough about asteroids to be able to defend against a hazardous one were to become a high priority, then the rational thing to do would be to build many robotic probes. Build lots of OSIRIS-RExes, because the robotic technology is closer at hand and much cheaper.If, contrary to my expectations, asteroid defense becomes a high priority, I think a substantial boost in funding of robotic asteroid probes is much more likely than the enormous boost in funding of human missions that would be required to provide an equivalent level of knowledge about asteroid deflection.
You're still making either-or statements!
The budgets are mostly unrelated.. yes, there's a theory that robotic exploration wouldn't get as much funding if human spaceflight were cut, and there's occasional raiding of budgets, but ultimately robotic exploration is not in competition with human spaceflight.
The only question worth asking is if human spaceflight could deliver any data about asteroid/comet threats that is worth having. The answer is obviously yes, and that focusing human spaceflight on that goal is better than the alternatives. (at least it's obvious to me, as defending the planet is more worthwhile than boring holes into LEO and it gives an intermediate goal before colonization begins, others may disagree).
Don't bring up robotic exploration when someone starts a conversation about the value of sending humans to explore asteroids. The two are completely unrelated.
Sure, a human NEA mission could deliver useful data. As Blackstar pointed out several posts up, however, what's really needed are visits to many NEAs, and that's really implausible with human missions.
And it would be massively ironic if the people who decide these things decided that for safety a human mission had to be preceded by a robotic mission, as many have argued in this forum.
It's funny, but I could have sworn the topic was something like efforts to track and mitigate asteroids and meteors....
I hate to admit it but QuantumG hits the nail smack-center on the head.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/26/2013 07:05 amI hate to admit it but QuantumG hits the nail smack-center on the head.I agree, but don't encourage him!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2013 03:50 pmQuote from: woods170 on 03/26/2013 07:05 amI hate to admit it but QuantumG hits the nail smack-center on the head.I agree, but don't encourage him! No, he's confused the whole issue. We're not talking about "space exploration" in general here, where the humans vs. robots angle is tired and over-simplified. We're talking about searching for, studying, and mitigating the threat of asteroids. And in that case the humans make no sense. What is needed for that is:-good search data (humans not needed) -good characteristics/ground truth on a lot of asteroids (humans not needed here either)Sending a human mission to a single asteroid, or even a couple of them, isn't going to help at all, because the data gathered is not going to be applicable to the much broader sample size. It's not the reason to do it, and it's not a good reason to do it.Go read the NRC study. They looked at the issue and came down pretty clearly on it.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/29/2013 04:59 pmSure, a human NEA mission could deliver useful data. As Blackstar pointed out several posts up, however, what's really needed are visits to many NEAs, and that's really implausible with human missions.I don't disagree with any individual statement here.I'll ask again: what's one got to do with the other?The only reason to bring it up is if you think the money that would be spent on a human mission could be shifted to what's "really needed". You just agreed that this isn't historically possible.
Why does it always have to be an either/or question when it comes to humans vs robotic?You get different data from each. I wasn't claiming you could do without the robotic probes, but mlindner was claiming you could do without sending humans. No-one can sensibly claim that any number of today's probes will return the kind of data we'd get from sending humans. When discussing Mars, the answer is often given: build better robots, or wait until AI is available (yeah right). The implication being that there's no rush. When talking about planetary defense, that logic simply doesn't work. We need all the available data, and as quickly as practical.
QuoteAnd it would be massively ironic if the people who decide these things decided that for safety a human mission had to be preceded by a robotic mission, as many have argued in this forum... and? Are you trying to say that sending a robotic mission to explore a particular asteroid means that later sending humans to explore the same asteroid would not deliver any more useful data? If not, what are you saying here?
Where humans might come in handy would be if we are going to capture or divert a NEA, the additional flexibility and dynamic response might help.
1-I think it's clear we don't need humans for gathering data... lots and lots of relatively cheap robotic missions are needed. Not just one, but tens or dozens.2-Where humans might come in handy would be if we are going to capture or divert a NEA, the additional flexibility and dynamic response might help.
If it comes down to blowing something up (which seemed to be the most popular approach among congressmen at the recent House hearing), I doubt there would be any need to physically implant a bomb on the surface, and you wouldn't want astronauts anywhere near it when it went off. If there is any scenario in which you want to do this, it's probably a last-minute one, when there's no time for deflection. In that case, the lesser advance time and greater acceptable risk for a robotic mission would be big advantages.
1-I agree that many robotic probes is preferable to sending humans.. but it's not an either-or choice. Both should be sent. It's that important.2-As for the NRC report, I haven't read it but if they're saying what you say they are saying then I think they're wrong. Is that okay? Can I disagree with a report? Or is it one of the gospels?
1-Cite any relevant data that supports the claim that humans would add anything to that task. For good measure, cite any relevant data that indicates that this is a cost effective use of funds.
As mentioned by Blackstar, part 2 will be on April 10th at 2 pm:http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-threats-space-review-non-us-government-efforts-track-and-mitigate
...he's the only person who has actually used a kinetic impactor to smack a primitive body.
I used to be able to convert streams like this to MP3s with the VLC media player, but that no longer seems to work. Does anybody know how to make a copy that I can listen to off line?
Part II of the hearing on the thread from asteroids and meteors is now archived here:
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/12/2013 12:13 amPart II of the hearing on the thread from asteroids and meteors is now archived here:There was apparently a point where a congressman asked all three presenters about the asteroid retrieval mission, got succinct answers, and then yielded his time back to the chair. The comments are probably worth repeating here.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/14/2013 05:34 amQuote from: yg1968 on 04/12/2013 12:13 amPart II of the hearing on the thread from asteroids and meteors is now archived here:There was apparently a point where a congressman asked all three presenters about the asteroid retrieval mission, got succinct answers, and then yielded his time back to the chair. The comments are probably worth repeating here.Can you give a sentence or two summary?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/14/2013 05:37 amQuote from: Blackstar on 04/14/2013 05:34 amQuote from: yg1968 on 04/12/2013 12:13 amPart II of the hearing on the thread from asteroids and meteors is now archived here:There was apparently a point where a congressman asked all three presenters about the asteroid retrieval mission, got succinct answers, and then yielded his time back to the chair. The comments are probably worth repeating here.Can you give a sentence or two summary?Rough summary:Q: Did you have any input into the development and selection of this mission?A: No.(Apparently all three of them were asked the same question and answered the same way.)
