http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/asteroid-redirect-mission-path-mars/Didn't want to get too wordy, so there's a State Of Play, some key points (such as SEP and the suits) and I've attached the NASA presentation for those who want to dig deeper into what this article was based on.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/22/2015 02:00 amhttp://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/asteroid-redirect-mission-path-mars/Didn't want to get too wordy, so there's a State Of Play, some key points (such as SEP and the suits) and I've attached the NASA presentation for those who want to dig deeper into what this article was based on.Thanks for the shout-out to Altius! That said, AIUI, the NASA baseline for Option-B is using robot arms derived from the FREND Arms that MDA has developed for DARPA and for Goddard's satellite servicing group (with JPL microspine grippers), though we'd love to find a way to stay involved.~Jon
Is there more info on the SEP modules available? Mass, propellant fraction, thrust, isp?
Quote from: Kaputnik on 04/22/2015 09:46 amIs there more info on the SEP modules available? Mass, propellant fraction, thrust, isp?Agreed, that would be vital information. I'd like to see calculations for using the ARV to do a Deimos/Phobos visit instead. If SEP can't do orbit insertion/departure at Mars it becomes redundant at best and useless at worst, at least for anything beyond shuttling cargo to the edge of Earth's gravity well. I'm far from convinced SEP is needed for a Mars mission at all.
Quote from: jongoff on 04/22/2015 03:57 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/22/2015 02:00 amhttp://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/asteroid-redirect-mission-path-mars/Didn't want to get too wordy, so there's a State Of Play, some key points (such as SEP and the suits) and I've attached the NASA presentation for those who want to dig deeper into what this article was based on.Thanks for the shout-out to Altius! That said, AIUI, the NASA baseline for Option-B is using robot arms derived from the FREND Arms that MDA has developed for DARPA and for Goddard's satellite servicing group (with JPL microspine grippers), though we'd love to find a way to stay involved.~JonIt was always going to be a reference to Altius, not just because "it's you" (we've got MDA friends here too) but because Altius' twitter feed is one of the few I follow, as it's very proactive at showing the development work. In a swamp of nonsense on Twitter, that's a great one to follow.
Quote from: redliox on 04/22/2015 11:00 amI'd like to see calculations for using the ARV to do a Deimos/Phobos visit instead. If SEP can't do orbit insertion/departure at Mars it becomes redundant at best and useless at worst, at least for anything beyond shuttling cargo to the edge of Earth's gravity well. I'm far from convinced SEP is needed for a Mars mission at all.SEP can do orbital insertion/departure at Mars, of course. And if you bothered to read the ARM proposal, you would know the information on mass fraction, Isp, and power (thrust is not the most useful metric when calculating missions for SEP, though of course it's trivial to derive the thrust given Isp, power, and efficiency).
I'd like to see calculations for using the ARV to do a Deimos/Phobos visit instead. If SEP can't do orbit insertion/departure at Mars it becomes redundant at best and useless at worst, at least for anything beyond shuttling cargo to the edge of Earth's gravity well. I'm far from convinced SEP is needed for a Mars mission at all.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/22/2015 01:51 pmQuote from: redliox on 04/22/2015 11:00 amI'd like to see calculations for using the ARV to do a Deimos/Phobos visit instead. If SEP can't do orbit insertion/departure at Mars it becomes redundant at best and useless at worst, at least for anything beyond shuttling cargo to the edge of Earth's gravity well. I'm far from convinced SEP is needed for a Mars mission at all.SEP can do orbital insertion/departure at Mars, of course. And if you bothered to read the ARM proposal, you would know the information on mass fraction, Isp, and power (thrust is not the most useful metric when calculating missions for SEP, though of course it's trivial to derive the thrust given Isp, power, and efficiency).The funny thing advocates of electric propulsion leave out is how weak the thrust is while going on about ISP. Where is the data that says how long the setup requires to do the ~1.5 km/sec just to brake into High Mars Orbit? I wouldn't advocate a setup that needs a solid 2 months or more to do a burn like that. Dawn had to fire it's engines for years for a gentle rendezvous with its targets; a crew vulnerable to radiation can't afford that much time.I agree SEP would be perfect for moving cargo, but a crew can fly to Mars more efficiently with methalox. Disprove me by showing how long SEP needs to do MOI.
Quote from: redliox on 04/23/2015 01:15 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/22/2015 01:51 pmQuote from: redliox on 04/22/2015 11:00 amI'd like to see calculations for using the ARV to do a Deimos/Phobos visit instead. If SEP can't do orbit insertion/departure at Mars it becomes redundant at best and useless at worst, at least for anything beyond shuttling cargo to the edge of Earth's gravity well. I'm far from convinced SEP is needed for a Mars mission at all.SEP can do orbital insertion/departure at Mars, of course. And if you bothered to read the ARM proposal, you would know the information on mass fraction, Isp, and power (thrust is not the most useful metric when calculating missions for SEP, though of course it's trivial to derive the thrust given Isp, power, and efficiency).The funny thing advocates of electric propulsion leave out is how weak the thrust is while going on about ISP. Where is the data that says how long the setup requires to do the ~1.5 km/sec just to brake into High Mars Orbit? I wouldn't advocate a setup that needs a solid 2 months or more to do a burn like that. Dawn had to fire it's engines for years for a gentle rendezvous with its targets; a crew vulnerable to radiation can't afford that much time.I agree SEP would be perfect for moving cargo, but a crew can fly to Mars more efficiently with methalox. Disprove me by showing how long SEP needs to do MOI.Look at the Boeing "six not so easy pieces" architecture.260 days to mars, 200 days return (450 days on surface).For comparison DRM 5.0 was 174 days out, 201 days back (539 days on surface). So the Boeing SEP proposal has about 25% longer transit (overall mission actually shorter).
Still, is 5 tons of a Martian moon worth more than 70 tons of an asteroid? If you want to send people to Mars, arguably it is.
The article states that the Phobos mission would still collect a boulder. It just has to be smaller than one collected from an asteroid.QuoteStill, is 5 tons of a Martian moon worth more than 70 tons of an asteroid? If you want to send people to Mars, arguably it is.I agree.
Quote from: RonM on 04/24/2015 08:46 pmThe article states that the Phobos mission would still collect a boulder. It just has to be smaller than one collected from an asteroid.QuoteStill, is 5 tons of a Martian moon worth more than 70 tons of an asteroid? If you want to send people to Mars, arguably it is.I agree.NAC says they should go to Mars whether they can get a sample or not.
Quote from: arachnitect on 04/24/2015 09:04 pmQuote from: RonM on 04/24/2015 08:46 pmThe article states that the Phobos mission would still collect a boulder. It just has to be smaller than one collected from an asteroid.QuoteStill, is 5 tons of a Martian moon worth more than 70 tons of an asteroid? If you want to send people to Mars, arguably it is.I agree.NAC says they should go to Mars whether they can get a sample or not.Even if they don't do the ARM grab a boulder routine, there should be some sort of sample return. If not, why bother to fly to Phobos?We already know SEP works from previous long duration missions. If all they want to do is test the engines on a large SEP tug then just fly it to the Moon and back.If they are going to have a SEP tug go to Phobos, it should bring something back. Otherwise, it is just as uninspiring and pointless as sending a manned Orion to DRO so the crew can twiddle their thumbs.
WOW! Christmas came early this year - real early. Look what the NASA Advisory Council just suggested NASA do.http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2015/04/advisors-to-nasa-dump-the-asteroid-mission-and-go-to-phobos-instead/Upthread I think I pretty much said the exact same thing. (Dances around the Christmas tree)
WOW! Christmas came early this year - real early. Look what the NASA Advisory Council just suggested NASA do.http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2015/04/advisors-to-nasa-dump-the-asteroid-mission-and-go-to-phobos-instead/Upthread I think I pretty much said the exact same thing.
SLS will need to launch something that will actually garner some genuine public interest.
The enhanced gravity tractor demo should /not/ be underestimated. By using this method, humanity will demonstrate the precise maneuvering of an asteroid larger than Apophis. That alone would be worth the $1.25 billion price tag. And a larger boulder would allow real scale demonstration of ISRU, allowing us to fill up 90% of our propellant in orbit without having to launch it from Earth. That would also be a game changer and well worth the mission cost (although this part would likely be demonstrated by commercial companies).Phobos (or Deimos) would be a good second mission, though. But following NAC's poor advice would dramatically reduce the value of ARM.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/25/2015 12:32 amThe enhanced gravity tractor demo should /not/ be underestimated. By using this method, humanity will demonstrate the precise maneuvering of an asteroid larger than Apophis. That alone would be worth the $1.25 billion price tag. And a larger boulder would allow real scale demonstration of ISRU, allowing us to fill up 90% of our propellant in orbit without having to launch it from Earth. That would also be a game changer and well worth the mission cost (although this part would likely be demonstrated by commercial companies).Phobos (or Deimos) would be a good second mission, though. But following NAC's poor advice would dramatically reduce the value of ARM.I like everything you've written here. ARM supporters have been shouting this into the wind. It's the most practical mission I can imagine for a rocket that's eminently unpractical. It seems to me that NASA should never have attempted to cast ARM as a stepping stone to Mars, except perhaps as a secondary consideration. ARM should be sold as NEO mitigation first, asteroid mining second, and stepping stone third. If the general public saw ARM as asteroid mitigation, they'd be cheering for it, and Congress can't very well call Bolden on the carpet for trying to save humanity.Perhaps the manned aspect was sufficiently weak that they didn't feel it could be sold that way to Congress. But Congress doesn't want to cancel SLS; it's their rocket, after all. They just want something for SLS to do that the public will find inspiring.
I find the Phobos re-direct idea rather silly, it comes off as an attempt to just 'Mars up' an idea to try to portray it as being more 'on the road to Mars' for people who don't understand anything about the actual technical challenges. SEP vehicles have already been well past Mars, the DISTANCE is trivial and not an improvement over current capabilities.
Quote from: Impaler on 05/03/2015 03:28 amI find the Phobos re-direct idea rather silly,Hehe.. I find that terminology slightly worrying. Imagine towing Phobos into high lunar orbit. "Look what I found, mum!"However my understanding is that the original NAC proposal did not mention sample return at all, which begs an obvious question...
I find the Phobos re-direct idea rather silly,
ARM option B would test out a gravity tractor. As neat as that is what is the chance of devastating impact happening in the next few decades? I am not sure of the wisdom in developing a technology which might not be needed for millennia. Let me posit this though, if the threat of an asteroid impact causes real concern why not use the money to fund something like the B612 Foundation's Sentinel telescope so we could find all the potentially dangerous asteroids? If there is a rock heading at us the most pressing thing is to find it as soon as possible. Funding will materialize for all sorts of deflection strategies in short order.
Using ARM to test a gravity tractor is begging the question of the danger of asteroid impacts, it assumes that in the near future there will be one. ...
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/05/2015 04:41 pmUsing ARM to test a gravity tractor is begging the question of the danger of asteroid impacts, it assumes that in the near future there will be one. ...No it doesn't. It only presumes there's a risk of an asteroid impact sometime within, say, the next century. By developing the tech sooner, this gives us a much better chance of deflecting an asteroid once it is determined to be a hazard.You don't ignore the risk just because it's not guaranteed to kill you.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 05:18 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 05/05/2015 04:41 pmUsing ARM to test a gravity tractor is begging the question of the danger of asteroid impacts, it assumes that in the near future there will be one. ...No it doesn't. It only presumes there's a risk of an asteroid impact sometime within, say, the next century. By developing the tech sooner, this gives us a much better chance of deflecting an asteroid once it is determined to be a hazard.You don't ignore the risk just because it's not guaranteed to kill you.There will always be a risk until the entire population is known. At some point that risk becomes low enough that the available finite funding is best spent on more pressing things. The the analysis based on what we know now is that over the next 100 years there is a 99% chance that a gravity tractor demo will be useless. ...
The current estimates of the probability of a damaging impact are based on the historic impact record of Earth and the Moon as well as the catalog of known objects. This is based on real data and statistical rules. To use the Russian Roulette analogy is it better to see if the gun is unloaded for a small amount of money or to make a Kevlar hat using a significant potion of your budget?
Pan-STARRS and ATLAS will get us much better statistics on impact probabilities and sizes over the next few years. Even basic data like size distributions of Asteroids have had large unknowns and estimates have been very uncertain heretofore.
Using ARM to test a gravity tractor is begging the question of the danger of asteroid impacts, it assumes that in the near future there will be one. According to Dr. Binzel the creator of the Torino Scale an asteroid impact which causes local destruction to an inhabited place happens on average of once every 10,000 years. Larger events happen much more rarely. If there is no threat there is no need to develop countermeasures.
ARM will cost at a minimum $1.25 billion and likely much more than that. For a small fraction of that a very intensive search for dangerous NEOs can be done. If that turns up anything bad then the government will effectively write a blank check to deal with it. NASA leadership has been talking about ARM for a while but only recently asked for money to conduct a search. Now they are saying that they don't even need to search because they have already picked the asteroids they want to target from the known catalog. ARM as it is being proposed now will not do the most simple, inexpensive, and important step of asteroid risk mitigation.
Also, the demo is not a significant portion of NASA's budget at all.
What portion of ARM is the gravity capture anyway? isn't it just an additional manoeuvre while holding the selected rock and some measurements?
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/04/2015 06:32 pmARM option B would test out a gravity tractor. As neat as that is what is the chance of devastating impact happening in the next few decades? I am not sure of the wisdom in developing a technology which might not be needed for millennia. Let me posit this though, if the threat of an asteroid impact causes real concern why not use the money to fund something like the B612 Foundation's Sentinel telescope so we could find all the potentially dangerous asteroids? If there is a rock heading at us the most pressing thing is to find it as soon as possible. Funding will materialize for all sorts of deflection strategies in short order.In the run up to World War 2 the Royal Air Force (RAF) prepared to defend Britain from attack by enemy aircraft. Underground control rooms were built to connect the fighter aircraft - Spitfires and Hurricanes - to the string of coastal radar installations. These radars allowed sufficient time to scramble the fighters to intercept the incoming bombers. All 3 parts needed to work for a successful defence.An ARM like spacecraft could be deployed to divert a dangerous incoming asteroid but the asteroid needs to be detected in time. In time is at least 2-3 years before impact.Using the ARM mission times give in http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/asteroid-redirect-mission-path-marsDiversion time 6 months (check same for real mission)Flight launch to boulder collection 18 monthsScramble time (To be determined)Total 6 + 18 + TBD = 24 months + TBDTo give Earth those 3 years warning a network of planetary defence telescopes on the Earth and satellites will be needed.Congress is unlikely to allocate the money for the network's construction and operations until presented with the plans and costings. The ARM mission is a proof of concept that can be used to justify building the planetary defence telescopes.
What would it take to add a materials exposure test to the ARM robotic spacecraft? NASA has done similar experiments in the past on the ISS, and is planning something similar on the X-37B: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-test-materials-to-fly-on-air-force-space-planeThe point of the ARM variant is that it would gather data for the deep space environment rather than LEO. The idea is that when the astronauts investigate the retrieved boulder, they could also grab the materials exposure experiment and return it to Earth for analysis. Similarly, what would it take to add a solar wind gathering instrument, similar to the one used for NASA's Genesis Discovery mission, to the ARM? The samples from the Genesis mission were somewhat compromised because the return capsule crashed. Again, the idea is that the astronauts would retrieve the experiment while they investigate the retrieved boulder.Not being a spacecraft engineer, I'm imagining these would be fairly simple additions to the mission, just sort of sitting there being exposed to the space environment, not using a lot of spacecraft resources. Reality is probably more complicated, though. Maybe they'd need to be shielded before reaching the asteroid or something like that. How would these additions compare to alternative enhancements to ARM like squeezing in additional instruments to study the asteroid while there in terms of complexity, usefulness, and cost?
May 18, 2015 RELEASE 15-094NASA Seeks Additional Information for Asteroid Redirect Mission SpacecraftNASA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking ideas from American companies for a spacecraft design that could be used for both the agency's Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) and a robotic satellite servicing mission in low-Earth orbit.In the early-2020s NASA plans to launch the Asteroid Redirect Mission, which will use a robotic spacecraft to capture a large boulder from the surface of a near-Earth asteroid and move it into a stable orbit around the moon for exploration by astronauts, all in support of advancing the nation's journey to Mars.NASA also has been studying the "Restore-L" mission concept, during which a spacecraft would use dexterous robotic systems to grapple and refuel a government satellite in low-Earth orbit. Restore-L would bring to operational status capabilities needed for future commercial satellite servicing by demonstrating technologies and reducing risk."Today's call for ideas from our industry partners is another important milestone for the Asteroid Redirect Mission, a critical capability demonstration mission that's part of our stepping stone approach for sending American astronauts to Mars in the 2030s," said NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot. "As part of our acquisition strategy, we're asking for more information toward the ARM spacecraft concept and also on commonality with a notional robotic satellite servicing spacecraft."The RFI is not a request for proposal or formal procurement and therefore is not a solicitation or commitment by the government. Deadline for submissions is 45 days after public posting of the RFI. The full RFI is available at:http://www.nasa.gov/feature/arm-spacecraft-bus-request-for-informationFollowing its rendezvous and touchdown with the target asteroid, the uncrewed ARM spacecraft will deploy robotic arms to capture a large boulder from its surface. It then will begin a multi-year journey to redirect the boulder into orbit around the moon.Throughout its mission, the ARM robotic spacecraft will test a number of capabilities needed for future human missions, including advanced Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), a valuable capability that converts sunlight to electrical power through solar arrays and then uses the resulting power to propel charged atoms to move a spacecraft. This method of propulsion can move massive cargo very efficiently. While slower than conventional chemical rocket propulsion, SEP-powered spacecraft require significantly less propellant and fewer launches to support human exploration missions, which could reduce costs.This RFI seeks spacecraft designs that may include taking advantage of Xenon capacity SEP, single or multiple component architectures and cost-sharing partnerships.Future SEP-powered spacecraft could pre-position cargo or vehicles for future human missions into deep space, either awaiting crews at Mars or staged around the moon as a waypoint for expeditions to the Red Planet.ARM's SEP-powered robotic spacecraft will test new trajectory and navigation techniques in deep space, working with the moon's gravity to place the asteroid in a stable lunar orbit called a distant retrograde orbit. This location is a suitable staging point for astronauts to rendezvous with a deep space habitat that will carry them to Mars.Before the large asteroid boulder is moved to lunar orbit, NASA will use the opportunity to test planetary defense techniques to inform mitigation of potential asteroid impact threats in the future. The experience and knowledge acquired through this operation will help NASA develop options to move an asteroid off an Earth-impacting course, if and when that becomes necessary.NASA's Near Earth Objects Program continues to implement new capabilities and upgrades to existing projects for detecting and cataloging asteroids. The agency also has engaged non-traditional partners and the public in the hunt for undetected asteroids through the NASA's Asteroid Grand Challenge activities, including prize competitions. In March, the agency announced the release of a software application based on an algorithm created through a NASA challenge that has the potential to help increase the number of asteroid detections in collected sky images.For more information about NASA's Asteroid Initiative, visit:http://www.nasa.gov/asteroidinitiativeFor more information about NASA's robotic satellite servicing capabilities office, visit:http://go.usa.gov/3kpV5
The agency is fully engaged with this mission.
Is it along the lines of 'engaged on all fronts of politics, finance, engineering, logistics and science of the mission'
What else would SLS and Orion do without it?
Um...anything new about ARM or is it starting to turn belly up already?
On Oct. 30 there was an extended telecon to discuss ARM. It was an open telecon and I know two people who listened in (there were also slides) and both said that it was very informative and interesting. Anybody know if there's a link to this anywhere?
I found it:http://www.nasa.gov/feature/asteroid-redirect-mission-community-updateThe recording is here:https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p2uso7polyj/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
Sending an Orion, with a much enlarged Service Module(a Bigelow inflatable?) to Phobos would be BOTH a Mars mission and an asteroid mission in ONE. Taxpayers would get more bang for their buck.
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.”
Is the astroid return mission dead ? It makes sense that it will be killed next year. Nobody is really enthusiastic about it.
"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.”
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.
ARM is a worthy scientific/engineering mission, however it doesn't "need" Orion/SLS and tell the "ugly giant bags of mostly water" to stay home...
of course, if ARM was coming out of the science budget it'd be funded much lower.
Quote from: QuantumG on 02/14/2016 08:00 pmof course, if ARM was coming out of the science budget it'd be funded much lower.ARM's being funded?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/14/2016 01:18 pmARM 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.Oh, agreed. The Europa mission is very similar, but is finding a lot less resistance. (Whether JPL can pull it off in the next 6-ish years with no bent metal yet is the only major question.). In both cases, ARM and Europa, there are scientifically worthy goals, but I don't know that either (especially ARM with a billion-dollar-plus price tag, just for the robotic part, yes?) would have survived the selection process and gained funding without being pulled forward by SLS.
Does ARM actually require SLS? Is there something massive or heavy about it makes SLS the only viable launch vehicle? Why not Delta Heavy or Falcon Heavy?
Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 02/20/2016 09:31 pmDoes ARM actually require SLS? Is there something massive or heavy about it makes SLS the only viable launch vehicle? Why not Delta Heavy or Falcon Heavy? Are you asking about ARM or ARRM?
so everyone better start hoping Hilary favors Obama's space plans because Trump surely won't (he already declared he favors fixing potholes over helping NASA).