The evolution of thinking about this is nice to see. "[...] the amount of additional propellant to insert into the utilization/storage orbit increases significantly as the asteroidal return mass becomes large. Performing an initial mission with a smaller mass can help increase the probability of mission success." Combined with frequently qualifying "a small NEA" with the phrase, "or part of a large NEA," this paper begins to blur the distinction between the highly-challenging "asteroid retrieval" and the more-achievable "asteroid sample return" mission classes.
Quote from: sdsds on 06/02/2013 09:16 pmThe evolution of thinking about this is nice to see. "[...] the amount of additional propellant to insert into the utilization/storage orbit increases significantly as the asteroidal return mass becomes large. Performing an initial mission with a smaller mass can help increase the probability of mission success." Combined with frequently qualifying "a small NEA" with the phrase, "or part of a large NEA," this paper begins to blur the distinction between the highly-challenging "asteroid retrieval" and the more-achievable "asteroid sample return" mission classes.Excellent observation about the continued blurring of the purpose, allowing success to be deemed at each point along the way.With the heist, the government continues to solidify its position as the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.Details at eleven.
Combined with frequently qualifying "a small NEA" with the phrase, "or part of a large NEA," this paper begins to blur the distinction between the highly-challenging "asteroid retrieval" and the more-achievable "asteroid sample return" mission classes.
SEP using prop launched from Earth is a dead end IMO.
The whole point of the original asteroid mission was to demonstrate progress on sending people to deep-space, as precursor to going to Mars.The whole point of this mission is to do something more than orbit the Moon while avoiding doing the hard development of long duration habs, etc.
+1Not even very good entertainment at that.SEP using prop launched from Earth is a dead end IMO.
Thanks for the link:"but the authors maintain that the primary motivation for retrieving large quantities of asteroidal material should be to help enable the utilization of space-based resources, through the development of technologies and operational techniques, that foster the creation of a viable, sustainable space-based economy."Since many near earth asteroids (NEA) have lower energy requirements to reach than the moon, they are literally the lowest hanging fruit for ISRU.
Who said the free-range asteroid mission won't follow?
Risk reduction is a good thing.
Move along, move along...
"In the game to export to High Earth or LEO, it seems NEA will eventually, win {maybe] but question is what is first."1st customers for ISRU resources are likely to be space based assets. Everyone agrees on this. What's up there right now? ISS in LEO and satellites in mostly high earth orbits. What may be launched in the fairly near term? Bigelow stations in LEO. Later, we may see space based solar power (HEO) or orbiting factories taking advantage of microgravity.In my view, NEA (near earth asteroid) ISRU (in space resource utilization) should come before lunar ISRU or Mars ISRU.
Who said the free-range asteroid mission won't follow?Risk reduction is a good thing.
I've been following this Missions to NEAs (HSF) forum with interest since its inception, and what I see as most striking is the continuing theme, NIH so posters don't like it. Or go big or stay home.To me, the asteroid capture is a step in the right direction. A small step to be sure but it's beyond the moon and the alternative to me seems to be to stay in LEO as we have for the past 40 years. Who among us really wants to stay home? If we don't get with the program I'm afraid we will end up staying home. Improve it if we can with the money made available but build on the positive ... harping on the negative aspects just provides justification to pull NASA funding. Now, if there is truly no benefit to be derived from the mission, then maybe NASA's funding should be reduced.