NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Near Earth Asteroids (HSF) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 12/07/2011 03:41 am
-
Article by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/asteroid-missions-proving-grounds-future-crewed-mars-missions/
----
Resources:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604288main_2-GER_WS_Asteroid-Next_Martinez-111113.pdf
L2 Resources (Selected):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=29.0 - Future spacecraft
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=tags&tags=NEO - NEO
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23689.0 - RSC Energia: Manned Transport Spacecraft Next Generation Presentations (start with part 1 of the presentations)
-
Great article Chris, keep 'em coming!
Would the Exploration Test Module be attached to ISS or be a free flyer? And where do fuel depots fit in this scenario?
-
Great article Chris, keep 'em coming!
Would the Exploration Test Module be attached to ISS or be a free flyer? And where do fuel depots fit in this scenario?
This is part I in a series that will published in the coming weeks. Your questions will be answered.
-
Great read!
-
That article exemplifies why NSF is the best space site on the Internet.
-
Nice article, but the concept stinks!
Could well be titled: "How Nasa plans to spend the next 23 years visiting one or two small rocks".
This reeks of the FY2011 authors' POV. Exploration is just an excuse to channel money into ISS, science and tech development. I'm not saying NASA shouldn't do those things, but there ought to be a balance with actual exploration.
I contrast this with the recent Boeing Moon proposal which mostly used existing technology & equipment, and offeres the prospect of multiple Moon landings per year, a lot sooner.
-
A bad plan is better than no plan. I would prefer that bad plans get set beside good plans in the cold light of day, both in their fullest disclosure, so that support of a bad plan will have little excuse after the comparison. Keep this up, NSF.
-
A good plan overall, except the timeline. First visit to NEO in 2028? Thats quite disappointing.
-
http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/12/software-usability-learning-curves/
Learning rate scales with frequency of repetition. Orbital frequency scales inversely with orbital radius. Small radius, fast learning, little time for hand-wringing. Large radius, slow learning, much time for hand-wringing. Plenty has been learned in craft designed just for LEO, so perhaps we can truly say of LEO, ""Been There, Done That."" Lincoln said, "If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my axe." If Lincoln wanted to get to Mars...
Anyway, I'd also like to see what depots will be in this plan.
-
Interesting article. If I was NASA, I would not send this to Congress, however. 17 year effort to visit a couple rocks isn't going to win hearts and minds.
Just for context, how are these various mission proposals (lunar, NEO) being packaged in terms of budget? Would lunar and NEO run concurrently, or is it an either/or choice given likely budgets?
-
Good article, Chris. As always, stuff like this is why I keep renewing L2 membership.
Interesting article. If I was NASA, I would not send this to Congress, however. 17 year effort to visit a couple rocks isn't going to win hearts and minds.
Face it, folks: NOTHING about space exploration these days will win Congressional hearts and minds unless NASA discovers an asteroid made of solid gold. ::)
Slow, methodical, budget-friendly plans are the best anyone should realistically expect for the next 10 - 15 years at least.
-
Good article, Chris. As always, stuff like this is why I keep renewing L2 membership.
Interesting article. If I was NASA, I would not send this to Congress, however. 17 year effort to visit a couple rocks isn't going to win hearts and minds.
Face it, folks: NOTHING about space exploration these days will win Congressional hearts and minds unless NASA discovers an asteroid made of solid gold. ::)
Slow, methodical, budget-friendly plans are the best anyone should realistically expect for the next 10 - 15 years at least.
I beg to differ. Incontrovertible evidence of life within reach of humans in the solar system would change things drastically I think. If say for instance Curiosity captures an image of a fossil in the clay minerals of Gale you would see a robust international effort to send humans. IMHO
-
Good article, Chris. As always, stuff like this is why I keep renewing L2 membership.
Interesting article. If I was NASA, I would not send this to Congress, however. 17 year effort to visit a couple rocks isn't going to win hearts and minds.
Face it, folks: NOTHING about space exploration these days will win Congressional hearts and minds unless NASA discovers an asteroid made of solid gold. ::)
Slow, methodical, budget-friendly plans are the best anyone should realistically expect for the next 10 - 15 years at least.
I beg to differ. Incontrovertible evidence of life within reach of humans in the solar system would change things drastically I think. If say for instance Curiosity captures an image of a fossil in the clay minerals of Gale you would see a robust international effort to send humans. IMHO
We would all love if that was how governments reacted. More than likely they'll start off by being in favor of a manned expedition, until we give them the price tag. Then a fancy robotic sample return mission will start to look very appealing. Yes, it's depressing.
-
Good article, Chris. As always, stuff like this is why I keep renewing L2 membership.
Interesting article. If I was NASA, I would not send this to Congress, however. 17 year effort to visit a couple rocks isn't going to win hearts and minds.
Face it, folks: NOTHING about space exploration these days will win Congressional hearts and minds unless NASA discovers an asteroid made of solid gold. ::)
Slow, methodical, budget-friendly plans are the best anyone should realistically expect for the next 10 - 15 years at least.
I beg to differ. Incontrovertible evidence of life within reach of humans in the solar system would change things drastically I think. If say for instance Curiosity captures an image of a fossil in the clay minerals of Gale you would see a robust international effort to send humans. IMHO
And probably an even more robust international effort to quarantine the planet to protect it from human contamination, if there's even the slightest evidence the life is still there.
-
First off good article. Secondly, this is the best proposal that I have seen so far. It seems to lay out atleast some of the big problems that will need to be solved before any deep space mission can occur. Then it lays out a timeline that allows time to slowly but surely learn the pitfalls of both the technology and techniques that will be required. As hard as it is to see timelines of 17 years we need to be realistic and cautious. A LOC event anywhere leading up to our first NEA mission and, I believe atleast, you could very well see the end of BLEO space exploration by NASA for our lifetimes.
I can see this being a hard pill for Moon-centric enthusiasts to swallow and I sympathize with that. However for those who are excited by a trip to Mars (an end goal in my lifetime hopefully), the incremental approach taken in this plan nets you not just 2 asteroid missions, but also retires or at a minimum reduces many of the major questions and risks that are unknown right now. Vehicles, advanced propulsion, radiation environment, crew psychology, robotics, operations, medical, ECLSS, etc... will all be knowns! When these 17 years are up hopefully we'll be able to make it to Mars orbit and back alive which is more than we can currently say.
-
First off good article. Secondly, this is the best proposal that I have seen so far. It seems to lay out atleast some of the big problems that will need to be solved before any deep space mission can occur. Then it lays out a timeline that allows time to slowly but surely learn the pitfalls of both the technology and techniques that will be required. As hard as it is to see timelines of 17 years we need to be realistic and cautious. A LOC event anywhere leading up to our first NEA mission and, I believe atleast, you could very well see the end of BLEO space exploration by NASA for our lifetimes.
I can see this being a hard pill for Moon-centric enthusiasts to swallow and I sympathize with that. However for those who are excited by a trip to Mars (an end goal in my lifetime hopefully), the incremental approach taken in this plan nets you not just 2 asteroid missions, but also retires or at a minimum reduces many of the major questions and risks that are unknown right now. Vehicles, advanced propulsion, radiation environment, crew psychology, robotics, operations, medical, ECLSS, etc... will all be knowns! When these 17 years are up hopefully we'll be able to make it to Mars orbit and back alive which is more than we can currently say.
Totally agree.
-
It's a great article and a nicely conceived plan.
But that's all they are. Nice plans. Sorry to seem so disgruntled about it.
I am just at zero tollerance for plans of plans.
Yes, let us herald the great plans! Have we been subjected to such vagueness and disappointment over the last number of years that at the mere sight of a seemingly coherent 20 year plan, we rejoice so?
You know what a plan, any plan, needs? It needs consistent, strong leadership. Alas, I look around and see none. (A mission like this needs the strongest and most eloquent, reasoned, presidential and top congressional leadership)
As for this "proving grounds". I read through it and feel as if I was back in the 1960's having none of the experience that we actually have. Yes, we all know there are very real issues to solve for and we can recount them well enough. But this "Plan" all seems so incredibly risk averse, overly cautious and way too far down the road.
I have no doubt that the minds within NASA, within our Universities and Corporations can solve for every challenge we will face on such a mission
I just wish we had the leadership and public will to allow them to do it and do it now.
-
It's a great article and a nicely conceived plan.
But that's all they are. Nice plans. Sorry to seem so disgruntled about it.
I am just at zero tollerance for plans of plans.
Yes, let us herald the great plans! Have we been subjected to such vagueness and disappointment over the last number of years that at the mere sight of a seemingly coherent 20 year plan, we rejoice so?
You know what a plan, any plan, needs? It needs consistent, strong leadership. Alas, I look around and see none. (A mission like this needs the strongest and most eloquent, reasoned, presidential and top congressional leadership)
As for this "proving grounds". I read through it and feel as if I was back in the 1960's having none of the experience that we actually have. Yes, we all know there are very real issues to solve for and we can recount them well enough. But this "Plan" all seems so incredibly risk averse, overly cautious and way too far down the road.
I have no doubt that the minds within NASA, within our Universities and Corporations can solve for every challenge we will face on such a mission
I just wish we had the leadership and public will to allow them to do it and do it now.
For some reason you never mentioned "funding."
-
(rant on)
The only way the public would take interest in this type of mission if it were “the one”... You know… “the one” that the media is always hyped up about and the subject of fear and dread in various movies. If it isn’t the killer asteroid that is going to wipe out the Earth and just some rock, well you know… yawn… Hey NASA find the alleged one, and get on with doing something actually about it and the public might actually take notice and actually vote you a funding increase…. Go save us…I dare you… ::)
(rant off)
-
(rant on)
The only way the public would take interest in this type of mission if it were “the one”... You know… “the one” that the media is always hyped up about and the subject of fear and dread in various movies. If it isn’t the killer asteroid that is going to wipe out the Earth and just some rock, well you know… yawn… Hey NASA find the alleged one, and get on with doing something actually about it and the public might actually take notice and actually vote you a funding increase…. Go save us…
(rant off)
Which is partly why I think the asteroid mission is being chosen, here. There are lots of space nuts, but far, far more people (probably most Americans) who have at one time or another seen disaster films movies like Armageddon or remember hearing in school about how the dinosaurs were killed off by a comet or asteroid. While technically speaking, we're not going to have Bruce Willis ride up to nuke an asteroid heading our way, it's a heck of a lot easier for them to understand why NASA needs funding in that context than some vague idea about science on the Moon (which I think is worthwhile).
Imagine the conspiracy theories if NASA is mounting a mission to a NEA for scientific study... Instead of claiming that it's all a hoax (and thus, why should we give NASA funding or trust them?), it will be the claim that NASA is averting a disaster without trying to spark a panic (and thus their question will be: why aren't we giving NASA more funding? and their response will be that NASA is actually doing something vital to society, which is true even if it isn't exactly as they're likely to imagine it). Planetary defense is a strong response to those who claim that NASA should be defunded and the money given to stuff "down here on Earth." Although we know a mission to an asteroid wouldn't DIRECTLY be helping planetary defense, it does enlarge the deep space capability of NASA and would greatly enhance our understanding of the structure and composition and dynamics of asteroids, which would be vital to mounting a true planetary defense mission.
Not only that, but the increased funding for finding mission targets does directly help planetary defense.
And yes, it's a good intermediate step between cislunar space and the Martian system. I don't see why everyone here is crying about this so much.
Good article, by the way, Chris! :)
-
(rant on)
The only way the public would take interest in this type of mission if it were “the one”... You know… “the one” that the media is always hyped up about and the subject of fear and dread in various movies. If it isn’t the killer asteroid that is going to wipe out the Earth and just some rock, well you know… yawn… Hey NASA find the alleged one, and get on with doing something actually about it and the public might actually take notice and actually vote you a funding increase…. Go save us…
(rant off)
Which is partly why I think the asteroid mission is being chosen, here. There are lots of space nuts, but far, far more people (probably most Americans) who have at one time or another seen disaster films movies like Armageddon or remember hearing in school about how the dinosaurs were killed off by a comet or asteroid. While technically speaking, we're not going to have Bruce Willis ride up to nuke an asteroid heading our way, it's a heck of a lot easier for them to understand why NASA needs funding in that context than some vague idea about science on the Moon (which I think is worthwhile).
Imagine the conspiracy theories if NASA is mounting a mission to a NEA for scientific study... Instead of claiming that it's all a hoax (and thus, why should we give NASA funding or trust them?), it will be the claim that NASA is averting a disaster without trying to spark a panic (and thus their question will be: why aren't we giving NASA more funding? and their response will be that NASA is actually doing something vital to society, which is true even if it isn't exactly as they're likely to imagine it). Planetary defense is a strong response to those who claim that NASA should be defunded and the money given to stuff "down here on Earth." Although we know a mission to an asteroid wouldn't DIRECTLY be helping planetary defense, it does enlarge the deep space capability of NASA and would greatly enhance our understanding of the structure and composition and dynamics of asteroids, which would be vital to mounting a true planetary defense mission.
Not only that, but the increased funding for finding mission targets does directly help planetary defense.
And yes, it's a good intermediate step between cislunar space and the Martian system. I don't see why everyone here is crying about this so much.
Good article, by the way, Chris! :)
All that makes perfect sense but not the “perfect sound bite”. Could you imagine all “the politicos” on the Hill falling over themselves to get to a mike “I say we need to increase NASA funding to save the Earth”. More capability from all the resulting hardware would be a byproduct of the mission. The actual methodology to redirect or deflect or any other theories could still come. If that astronaut was actually touching and looking at the “evil killer asteroid” and us with our TV eyes… now that’s prime time! ;)
Robert
-
To quote a famous classic show:
"One of these days! Pow! To the moon, Alice!!!"
That's all that needs to be said.
-
Still yet to see proof that asteroid next missions are nothing but a waste of money and actually set back a Mars landing.
Developing technology?
Give me a break.
Launching stacks of SLS rockets to go to a bunch of asteroids at the price we know they're going to cost and not going to Mars is a joke.
I would only support 1 asteroid mission to test deep space hab and MPCV before moving on to the moons of Mars.
This will be the Apollo 7 confidence builder before the full journey without landing Apollo 8 style mission direct to Mars.
Nothing else except Mars should be on the table.
NASA isn't bloated with cash, they can't explore the moon and/or asteroids extensively and still have the money for Mars. It just doesn't make sense to me.
-
Still yet to see proof that asteroid next missions are nothing but a waste of money and actually set back a Mars landing.
Developing technology?
Give me a break.
Launching stacks of SLS rockets to go to a bunch of asteroids at the price we know they're going to cost and not going to Mars is a joke.
I would only support 1 asteroid mission to test deep space hab and MPCV before moving on to the moons of Mars.
This will be the Apollo 7 confidence builder before the full journey without landing Apollo 8 style mission direct to Mars.
Nothing else except Mars should be on the table.
NASA isn't bloated with cash, they can't explore the moon and/or asteroids extensively and still have the money for Mars. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Don't equate those destinations as if they require approximately the same amount of money.
I'm a Mars-firster generally, too, but there's a pretty large funding gap that needs to be crossed. If we don't pick intermediate destinations, then a LOT of technologies will need to be put on the critical path that we just don't have that much experience with. We have very little experience in deep space, for instance.
This is a pretty reasonable plan, but I do think it could be compressed quite a bit... Are six years of missions to the DSH really necessary before we go to a NEA? Is a crew of six necessary for the DSH, for instance? I think we could get a lot of mileage out of the Exploration Test Module, and I bet we'd end up using it for longer than this article suggests.
-
1)This is a pretty reasonable plan, but I do think it could be compressed quite a bit... Are six years of missions to the DSH really necessary before we go to a NEA?
2)Is a crew of six necessary for the DSH, for instance?
3)I think we could get a lot of mileage out of the Exploration Test Module, and I bet we'd end up using it for longer than this article suggests.
1)This first comment is not directed specifically at you Robot but instead at we, the space enthuist community at large. We get angry and frustrated at programs like JWST, CxP, Hubble, MSL, etc... because the original schedules and budgets are too optimistic and consequently they go over time and budget. Yet when a proposal seemingly does give plenty of leeway, atleast in the scheduling, there is angst and frustration with how long the process takes and how "risk adverse" NASA has become. We are seemingly demanding that NASA perfectly predict the timelines and budget requirements of projects that have never flown before and must be invented over timespans measured in decades. To me, that is ludicrous. This is an extremely challenging field where everyday NASA is asked to do something that has never been done before. Mistakes are going to be made along the way. I guess IMO I would rather those mistakes be overestimating schedules and budgets early on.
Another way of looking at is this: are we happier with CxP's budget and schedule issues slipping to the right or are we happier with SLS potentially sliding to the left by 2 years because the original estimates were conservative?
I apologize for my long rant here. I guess I just grow tired of NASA getting slammed both ways.
2) I only ever see crews of 4 at the DSH (Pg. 9 Martinez)
3) I think you're right and the EP would get more use than is shown. However I think this proposal was focused on the archetecture required to get to a NEA and not as a roadmap for HSF in general. On the other hand the EP's modules would have been in existence ~30 years at that point.
-
1)This is a pretty reasonable plan, but I do think it could be compressed quite a bit... Are six years of missions to the DSH really necessary before we go to a NEA?
2)Is a crew of six necessary for the DSH, for instance?
3)I think we could get a lot of mileage out of the Exploration Test Module, and I bet we'd end up using it for longer than this article suggests.
1)This first comment is not directed specifically at you Robot but instead at we, the space enthuist community at large. We get angry and frustrated at programs like JWST, CxP, Hubble, MSL, etc... because the original schedules and budgets are too optimistic and consequently they go over time and budget. Yet when a proposal seemingly does give plenty of leeway, atleast in the scheduling, there is angst and frustration with how long the process takes and how "risk adverse" NASA has become. We are seemingly demanding that NASA perfectly predict the timelines and budget requirements of projects that have never flown before and must be invented over timespans measured in decades. To me, that is ludicrous. This is an extremely challenging field where everyday NASA is asked to do something that has never been done before. Mistakes are going to be made along the way. I guess IMO I would rather those mistakes be overestimating schedules and budgets early on.
Another way of looking at is this: are we happier with CxP's budget and schedule issues slipping to the right or are we happier with SLS potentially sliding to the left by 2 years because the original estimates were conservative?
I apologize for my long rant here. I guess I just grow tired of NASA getting slammed both ways.
2) I only ever see crews of 4 at the DSH (Pg. 9 Martinez)
3) I think you're right and the EP would get more use than is shown. However I think this proposal was focused on the archetecture required to get to a NEA and not as a roadmap for HSF in general. On the other hand the EP's modules would have been in existence ~30 years at that point.
Good overall points, especially 1).
-
Lets not get so far behind we're going in circles.
Mars has been on the table since the early 60s during Apollo development.
Nobody saw funding getting to such a point it is now.
NASA could've been on Mars at least twice in the last 40 years.
They've never had the money to develop the hardware they've wanted in their plans.
Heavy Lift was scrapped over and over and now we're just sitting around waiting for SLS to bridge the gap and even this might not even see the light of day :(
-
2,000 and more studies and powerpoints of rockets by Nasa..................
That's one thing they are pretty damn good at.
( besides the Shuttle, R.I.P. )
-
A related paper just published, and due to be presented next year:
Mars as a Destination in a Capability-Driven Framework
Earth and Space 2012 Conference; 15-18 Apr. 2012; Pasadena, CA; United States
This paper describes NASA’s current plans for the exploration of Mars by human crews within NASA’s Capability-Driven Framework (CDF). The CDF describes an approach for progressively extending human explorers farther into the Solar System for longer periods of time as allowed by developments in technology and spacecraft systems. Within this framework, Mars defines the most challenging objective currently envisioned for human spaceflight.
The paper first describes the CDF and potential destinations being considered within this framework. For destinations relevant to the exploration of Mars, this includes both the Martian surface and the two moons of Mars. This is followed by a brief review of our evolving understanding of Mars to provide the context for the specific objectives set for human exploration crews. This includes results from robotic missions and goals set for future Martian exploration by NASA's community-based forum, the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) and the MEPAG-sponsored Human Exploration of Mars - Science Analysis Group (HEM-SAG).
The paper then reviews options available for human crews to reach Mars and return to Earth. This includes a discussion of the rationale used to select from among these options for envisioned Mars exploration missions.
The paper then concludes with a description of technological and operational challenges that still face NASA in order to be able to achieve the exploration goals for Mars within the CDF.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023072_2011023909.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023072_2011023909.pdf)
-
hmmm...
It just seems like the exploitation of the moon and conquering of Cislunar space is the right path after all...then maybe an asteroid...then Mars.
"Small steps, Ellie, small steps" from the movie Contact.
-
Can anybody tell me where Orion is set to travel? The way I see it, the spacecraft is too small to travel to Mars? If it is not going to Mars or the moon, then where? What are the possible destinations for the Orion craft?
-
Can anybody tell me where Orion is set to travel? The way I see it, the spacecraft is too small to travel to Mars? If it is not going to Mars or the moon, then where? What are the possible destinations for the Orion craft?
Orion would go to Mars but with a mission module, just like a lunar lander or ISS. It doesnt really fly by itself
-
Near Earth Asteroids.
-
Can anybody tell me where Orion is set to travel? The way I see it, the spacecraft is too small to travel to Mars? If it is not going to Mars or the moon, then where? What are the possible destinations for the Orion craft?
It's first two missions, one unmanned, one manned, are circumlunar (though there are hints that could change). A precursor flight with a boilerplate will go into an elliptical earth orbit to test the heat shield upon reentry.
After that, planning is vague. As Jim noted, it would fly with or to a mission module for really long-duration missions. There's talk of an L1 or L2 station, of month's long deep, deep space flights, just drifting out there, of asteroids, of lunar missions, and of visits to Mars or its moons in a couple of decades, maybe. However it will be used, it will fly rarely, due both to the limits of orbital mechanics and budget.
- Ed Kyle
-
sorry just don't see the wisdom in spending a fortune for a manned mission to an asteroid.
If so much knowledge is worth the expense then I propose a less expensive program.
JAXA has some decent HW for Asteroids.
Build a space platform with several missions launchers stocked up.
When the next Asteroid comes near earth (like tonight), program the mission and Launch.
The Asteroid acts like a spacecraft.
-
sorry just don't see the wisdom in spending a fortune for a manned mission to an asteroid.
Debating destinations is pointless. What you need to do is make sure that the architecture and infrastructure for asteroid missions supports eventual journeys to places you like, such as Mars, the Moon, or your local 7-11.
-
sorry just don't see the wisdom in spending a fortune for a manned mission to an asteroid.
Debating destinations is pointless. What you need to do is make sure that the architecture and infrastructure for asteroid missions supports eventual journeys to places you like, such as Mars, the Moon, or your local 7-11.
Yup. Missions to asteroids are preparation for missions to Mars (and/or beyond).
-
Can anybody tell me where Orion is set to travel? Thing toe way I see it, the spacecraft is too small to travel to Mars? If it is not go Mars or the moon, then where? What are the possible destinations for the Orion craft?
Earth orbit, Lunar orbit, and L2. The current President doesn't want Americans going to the Moon to do science and initial ISRU experiments, so the Lunar orbit destination is somewhat low profile...
:)
-
Can anybody tell me where Orion is set to travel? Thing toe way I see it, the spacecraft is too small to travel to Mars? If it is not go Mars or the moon, then where? What are the possible destinations for the Orion craft?
Earth orbit, Lunar orbit, and L2. The current President doesn't want Americans going to the Moon to do science and initial ISRU experiments, so the Lunar orbit destination is somewhat low profile...
:)
Neither this President nor the candidate want to build a moonbase. Sorry, guys.
-
sorry just don't see the wisdom in spending a fortune for a manned mission to an asteroid.
Debating destinations is pointless. What you need to do is make sure that the architecture and infrastructure for asteroid missions supports eventual journeys to places you like, such as Mars, the Moon, or your local 7-11.
Yup. Missions to asteroids are preparation for missions to Mars (and/or beyond).
Missions to the Moon would be far superior preparation for missions to Mars and/or "beyond"...
-
(rant on)
The only way the public would take interest in this type of mission if it were “the one”... You know… “the one” that the media is always hyped up about and the subject of fear and dread in various movies. If it isn’t the killer asteroid that is going to wipe out the Earth and just some rock, well you know… yawn… Hey NASA find the alleged one, and get on with doing something actually about it and the public might actually take notice and actually vote you a funding increase…. Go save us…
(rant off)
Which is partly why I think the asteroid mission is being chosen, here. There are lots of space nuts, but far, far more people (probably most Americans) who have at one time or another seen disaster films movies like Armageddon or remember hearing in school about how the dinosaurs were killed off by a comet or asteroid. While technically speaking, we're not going to have Bruce Willis ride up to nuke an asteroid heading our way, it's a heck of a lot easier for them to understand why NASA needs funding in that context than some vague idea about science on the Moon (which I think is worthwhile).
... Planetary defense is a strong response to those who claim that NASA should be defunded and the money given to stuff "down here on Earth."
"Planetary defense" is merely crass fear-mongering. Spending several billion per year on asteroid mitigation does not stand up to the most basic risk analysis. It's not worth it if you crunch the numbers.
-
It stands up better than analysis talking about mining the Moon.
-
Hey you two don’t put me in the middle of this… :P
-
"Planetary defense" is merely crass fear-mongering. Spending several billion per year on asteroid mitigation does not stand up to the most basic risk analysis. It's not worth it if you crunch the numbers.
Wouldn't a mission to Apophis in 2029 be able to accomplish a number of scientific objectives and also gather "planetary defense" data as well? We could take careful measurements of its mass, composition, and density, then attach a couple of transponders. The transponder data over the next 7 years could be compared to the computer modeling of the 2036 approach so we can see how accurate our modeling is. No fear mongering need be done, but it to the public, this should seem to be a prudent use of the available technology in being prepared for an unexpected approach of another body farther in the future.
-
On the planetary defense motivation for "asteroids next" note well that even so called experts can't dictate to others what they should want. What economists call "utility" is personal. People seem to want assurances about asteroid impacts and humanity's ability to prevent them. Apparently no statistical analysis indicating we don't need to defend the planet is going to get them the assurance they want.
Should NASA be pimping that agenda? Well, no: NASA should be bound by scientific ethics. But if Congress funds planetary defense (or research in preparation for planetary defense) NASA should carry out the wishes of Congress to the best of its ability.
Also, a reasonably strong case can be made that near Earth asteroid missions might be valuable precursors to a Phobos mission. ;)
-
As with all human spaceflight, whether it makes sense to send people depends primarily on how much it costs. With current technology any asteroid mission (science, planetay defense, even mineral extraction) can be accomplished robotically at much lower cost. If the ost of human access to space is reduced (by at least a factor of ten) a spectrum of human science missions become fesible. At some price point human missions to asteroids will become cost-effectie, but not with Constellation technology.
-
Yes, robotic precursor missions are apparently seen as essential. Note the 2011 Martinez presentation (linked in the first post) shows two NEA precursor missions before the first human mission. As for cost: it isn't clear sending humans for any mission is cost effective, but the United States nonetheless seems compelled to send astronauts somewhere.
-
It [defense against asteroids] stands up better than analysis talking about mining the Moon.
How can that be when a Lunar mining op would eventually pay for itself in terms of both mass and $$$?
The odds of a city buster taking out 10,000,000 people at once in any given year are on the order of 1 in 500,000. If people are worth $3M ea., then the damages of a city buster taking out a big city would be on the order of $30T. Thus the expected loss per year is $30T * 0.000002 = $60M/year. In other words, if we were to spend much more than ~$60M/year on "planetary defense", we'd be chumps wasting our money. Human asteroid missions are going to cost a lot more than $60M/year--it'll be more like $6B/year, a differnce of two orders of magnitude.
If we were to flip a coin where the bet would be heads you pay me $1, tails I pay you $0.01, would you be smart to take that bet?
You don't like that analysis? Well, we can work backwards. To spend $6B/year on "planetary defense" and yet have it still be worth it, that entails that the expected damages really are on the order of $10B/year. (To sell the idea, it would be best if we could make it seem that the $6B/year was a really good deal; if expected damages were $10B/year, then spending $6B/year on mitigation would be a bargain!)
So, somehow, you have to put together a mathematical case that the expected damages from asteroids per year is on the order of $10B/year. To do that you either have to make the case:
(1) that the odds of impacts are much greater than I assumed;
(2) that people are worth a lot more than $3M each;
(3) that the number of deaths would be a lot more than 10,000,000;
(4) that death by asteroid is ever so much more horrible than the 1,000 other ways that people die every day;
(5) that ____________________________________________.
-
And if an asteroid kills everyone, forever? That's got to be worth a trillion human lives.
Extinction-level events are more important than the sum total of the risk to each individual.
-
And if an asteroid kills everyone, forever? That's got to be worth a trillion human lives.
Extinction-level events are more important than the sum total of the risk to each individual.
lol! OK Chris--you win! (We'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the philosophical can of worms you just opened up. ;) )
Assuming we don't discount the value of future lives, then at a birth rate of 100 million/year, then a trillion lives is about 10,000 years of future lives at stake. (Since human civilization is only about 10,000 years old, surely we don't have a duty to people more than 10,000 years in the future; or do we?)
At $3M each the value of Homo sapiens is $3 quintillion. Thus if the odds of a dinosaur killer hitting us in any given year are 1 in 100 million, then the expected loss per year due to dinosaur killers is ~$30B/year. In that case, spending $6B/year on planetary defense is truly a bargain! :D
-
The obvious deal would be for NASA to use the Planetary Resources system for extracting volatiles from asteroids on this mission, so that the crew could actually use the asteroidal regolith for something while they are there.
Also, oxygen and water could be useful in case of emergency.
This is assuming that PR has actually developed their technology in the next few years.
-
As with all human spaceflight, whether it makes sense to send people depends primarily on how much it costs. With current technology any asteroid mission (science, planetay defense, even mineral extraction) can be accomplished robotically at much lower cost. If the ost of human access to space is reduced (by at least a factor of ten) a spectrum of human science missions become fesible. At some price point human missions to asteroids will become cost-effectie, but not with Constellation technology.
Yes, we have a very good starting point in this project. Just need to partner and fund.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22015.0
-
The obvious deal would be for NASA to use the Planetary Resources system for extracting volatiles from asteroids on this mission, so that the crew could actually use the asteroidal regolith for something while they are there.
Also, oxygen and water could be useful in case of emergency.
This is assuming that PR has actually developed their technology in the next few years.
What system? Such as it is, isn't the current plan to haul asteroids back to Earth orbit and then process them there? You go putting asteroidal ISRU on the critical path, it'll never happen. The main problem is launch windows: the ones with really low delta v have synodic periods of like 30 years.
-
The obvious deal would be for NASA to use the Planetary Resources system for extracting volatiles from asteroids on this mission, so that the crew could actually use the asteroidal regolith for something while they are there.
Also, oxygen and water could be useful in case of emergency.
This is assuming that PR has actually developed their technology in the next few years.
What system? Such as it is, isn't the current plan to haul asteroids back to Earth orbit and then process them there? You go putting asteroidal ISRU on the critical path, it'll never happen. The main problem is launch windows: the ones with really low delta v have synodic periods of like 30 years.
First off, regardless of where PR does its processing, the company has to have the technology to process volatiles. Assuming PR is real, the company should have this technology in hand prior to NASA sending crew off to some asteroid. My point is that by working together this company and NASA could save the taxpayer some $$ and produce some concrete results from an asteroid mission.
Secondly, I am not suggesting that ISRU be in the baseline for an asteroid mission, it would be part of the science system as a payload.
-
It [defense against asteroids] stands up better than analysis talking about mining the Moon.
How can that be when a Lunar mining op would eventually pay for itself in terms of both mass and $$$?
!)
....
So, somehow, you have to put together a mathematical case that the expected damages from asteroids per year is on the order of $10B/year. To do that you either have to make the case:
(1) that the odds of impacts are much greater than I assumed;
(2) that people are worth a lot more than $3M each;
(3) that the number of deaths would be a lot more than 10,000,000;
(4) that death by asteroid is ever so much more horrible than the 1,000 other ways that people die every day;
(5) that ____________________________________________.
Most folks on the spaceship Earth don't do much math or have a lot of faith in the intellectual integrity of the math of anyone's national government. Most folks are not like you, nor do they have the relatively transparent institutions that you can rely on every day.
Warren, please note that uncertainty, fear, panic, disruptions, and mobs with various extreme beliefs can do much more damage than the triggering NEO impact event. A minor impact event could trigger an economic recession, depression, or even a few minor or major wars. And lots of folks tell a whole bunch of lies about almost everything that happens, don't they? We really don't know how every part of our crowded global village would react to even a minor impact event, do we? Globalization has its own inherent benefits and risks.
Perhaps the only efficient way to have a layered and robust defense against NEOs is to develop our Lunar ISRU capabilities and also diverse and extensive cislunar commercial activities.
Crewed asteroid and Mars missions in and of themselves won't provide the capabilities and degree of robust protection from NEOs that most folks expect, or will eventually expect, their space programs to provide.
International trust, cooperation, technology investment, and Lunar development will be essential for building the space programs that humans want and that can enable many affordable crewed missions to asteroids and Mars.
The Moon is the real Proving Grounds for future crewed Mars missions.
:)
-
Perhaps the only efficient way to have a layered and robust defense against NEOs is to develop our Lunar ISRU capabilities and also diverse and extensive cislunar commercial activities.
Crewed asteroid and Mars missions in and of themselves won't provide the capabilities and degree of robust protection from NEOs that most folks expect, or will eventually expect, their space programs to provide.
International trust, cooperation, technology investment, and Lunar development will be essential for building the space programs that humans want and that can enable many affordable crewed missions to asteroids and Mars.
The Moon is the real Proving Grounds for future crewed Mars missions.
:)
Exactly. If it's dinosaur killers that we're really worried about and we're going to use that as justification for spending 6 to 9 $B/year on HSF, then spending that money on asteroid missions is a massive misallocation of resources. The dinosaur killers are going to be big comets coming in at hyperbolic speeds from out of the Oort Cloud. It's going to take a muscular space program to be able to do anything at all about stuff like that. Asteroid missions are shoestring missions based on the old style architectures and thinking. Asteroid missions themselves do little to really build up either are actual hardware capabilities or our experience base relative other missions, to wit, the Moon.
-
....
Exactly. If it's dinosaur killers that we're really worried about and we're going to use that as justification for spending 6 to 9 $B/year on HSF, then spending that money on asteroid missions is a massive misallocation of resources. The dinosaur killers are going to be big comets coming in at hyperbolic speeds from out of the Oort Cloud. It's going to take a muscular space program to be able to do anything at all about stuff like that. Asteroid missions are shoestring missions based on the old style architectures and thinking. Asteroid missions themselves do little to really build up either are actual hardware capabilities or our experience base relative other missions, to wit, the Moon.
Yep. "It's going to take a" carefully focused and "muscular space program to be able to do anything at all about stuff like that." Unfortunately, the President and his science adviser seem totally incapable of planning how to successfully deal with "big comets coming in at hyperbolic speeds from out of the Oort Cloud" and to be blunt, our current space and military systems are not even realistically prepared and equipped to divert a small incoming NEO. The President's failure to plan actually means planning for failure.
Also, for the record, no one yet really wants to talk seriously about LOM, or Loss Of Mission, and LOC, or Loss Of Crew, numbers for NEO and Mars missions. Failure to have the prior extensive long-term BLEO experience and needed multiple robust backup systems for long distance trips to NEOs and Mars means we would be placing the international crews of those missions at much higher risk than can be logically justified.
Extensive cislunar commercial activities, along with intensive international Lunar exploration and ISRU efforts would give us the skills, experience, equipment, spaceships, safety margins, and propellant resources needed for successful crewed missions to NEOs, Mars, Ceres, and even hyperbolic comets from the Oort Cloud.
Despite the loud hype, the President's confused and nonsensical political perspective about human space exploration embraces dangerous NEO and Mars "shoestring missions based on the old style architectures and thinking" and enables the continued "misallocation" of scarce space funding resources. Fortunately, the President's empty rhetoric of "Asteroid Next" is unlikely to influence the pragmatic Lunar exploration and exploitation efforts of India, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, South Korea, and Europe.
Note also:
"With a potential return to the surface of the Moon – named as a Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) – now acknowledged as a possibility by NASA administrator Charlie Bolden during this week’s hearing with lawmakers, a large gap of around 10 or more years requires mission content to be installed into the roadmap, based on the assumption of a potential lunar mission in the first half of the 2020s and the mid 2030s timeline of the opening Mars missions."
From: NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids March 23rd, 2012 by Chris Bergin
At: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
:)
-
"Decide, O Queen; poor Louis can decide nothing: execute this Flight-project, or at least abandon it."
-The French Revolution, Thomas Carlyle
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1301/pg1301.txt Chapter 2.4.I.
-
If we want to go to mars - go to mars! There is only so much money in the pot.
-
If we want to go to mars - go to mars! There is only so much money in the pot.
I want to terraform Mars and have millions of people living there. I want Ceres to become an integral part of the enormous and growing human economic sphere. And, after fifty-two years of being a space cadet, I do not see how some footprints on Mars or hand prints on an asteroid and then zero crewed missions to those locations for fifty or more years will help to enable a permanent human presence on Ceres and Mars.
If we really want to spend the money and run the risks of repeated Mars and asteroid missions, we first need to greatly improve our space skills to reduce those risks and costs. We need to create a large and permanent cislunar technology and asset base. Exploiting Lunar resources will change how we think about space and encourage leaders of various types to invest human lives and money in the more difficult and dangerous NEO, Mars, and Ceres missions.
Older space cadets have seen how the narrow and single-minded pursuit of a grand and expensive space goal can lead to initial success and then stagnation, retreat, lost technical capabilities, indifference, and an extremely foolish "Been there, done that" science and imagination failure of our political and financial elites.
Broad international exploration and economic development of known Lunar resources and a large increase in the commercial and scientific use of the advantages of L2 and cislunar space are what we need to do now in order to greatly improve our odds of successful and ongoing extensive human exploration and use of Mars, Ceres, and many NEOs.
Cheers!
-
If we want to go to mars - go to mars! There is only so much money in the pot.
I want to terraform Mars and have millions of people living there. I want Ceres to become an integral part of the enormous and growing human economic sphere. And, after fifty-two years of being a space cadet, I do not see how some footprints on Mars or hand prints on an asteroid and then zero crewed missions to those locations for fifty or more years will help to enable a permanent human presence on Ceres and Mars.
If we really want to spend the money and run the risks of repeated Mars and asteroid missions, we first need to greatly improve our space skills to reduce those risks and costs. We need to create a large and permanent cislunar technology and asset base. Exploiting Lunar resources will change how we think about space and encourage leaders of various types to invest human lives and money in the more difficult and dangerous NEO, Mars, and Ceres missions.
Older space cadets have seen how the narrow and single-minded pursuit of a grand and expensive space goal can lead to initial success and then stagnation, retreat, lost technical capabilities, indifference, and an extremely foolish "Been there, done that" science and imagination failure of our political and financial elites.
Broad international exploration and economic development of known Lunar resources and a large increase in the commercial and scientific use of the advantages of L2 and cislunar space are what we need to do now in order to greatly improve our odds of successful and ongoing extensive human exploration and use of Mars, Ceres, and many NEOs.
Cheers!
Then NASA needs to be redisgned to be a commercial space incubator. But It is not that at present despite the success of cots. Until that change happens, unless we re going to mars then we are not going to mars. Pretty simple really.
-
"Decide, O Queen; poor Louis can decide nothing: execute this Flight-project, or at least abandon it."
-The French Revolution, Thomas Carlyle
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1301/pg1301.txt Chapter 2.4.I.
Thomas Carlyle, "Our main business is not to see what lies dimly in the distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand.”
Thomas Carlyle, "So here hath been dawning another blue day: Think, wilt thou let it slip useless away?"
From: http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThomasCarlyleHathDawning/llpgg/post.htm
:)
-
...
Then NASA needs to be redisgned to be a commercial space incubator. But It is not that at present despite the success of cots. Until that change happens, unless we re going to mars then we are not going to mars. Pretty simple really.
[/quote]
The success and limitations of COTS will need to be evaluated over a twenty or thirty year period of time. Use what we have now, to do what we need to do now and in the near future. Commercial, NASA, and many other space organizations will have failures and difficulties and successes in their diverse space efforts.
One 'business plan' or one method of doing things will not be suitable for all that needs to be done in cislunar, L2, and Lunar exploration and exploitation. Many countries will prefer to have their national space agencies directly involved in their initial beyond LEO space efforts, including those activities that will eventually be done by various businesses.
Think about forms of international cooperation that include the widest possible number of diverse countries and businesses. Ask yourself how North Korea and Iran could be included in this international effort to fully explore and exploit the resources of space. Whatever you do, don't expect NASA to do it all.
:)
-
I would be happy if we could just persuade Congress to let NASA talk to China.
-
I would be happy if we could just persuade Congress to let NASA talk to China.
International Workshop on Mars and the Moon: Changing Perspectives and New Questions
At: http://www.spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=7110
"Date: 6-10 Ag 2012
Location: Beijing, CN"
And, "The workshop will include scientists from the US, Europe, and China and will encompass all aspects of Mars and Moon science from geophysics and geology to aeronomy and solar wind interactions. The workshop is one week before the AOGS meeting (Singapore) and 2 weeks before the IAU general assembly (Beijing)."
Don't worry vulture4. Ever changing official rules and prohibitions and policies may be publicly followed by agencies, but individuals live in the real world. If I've learned anything in the last 60 years, it is that most people are friendly and like to talk and learn about what other folks are doing and would like to do.
Cheers!
-
I would be happy if we could just persuade Congress to let NASA talk to China.
I don't think that would really help. Heck, it might be better if they don't. Nationalism got us to the Moon. With more cooperation and less competitive nationalism, would we even have bothered? It's quite possible that the total budgets would've been much less for Apollo (and the Soviet efforts) had we been buddy-buddy with them.
I say, let the Chinese build their space station. Let them go to the Moon, because there's no way Congress would increase NASA's funds otherwise!
Of course, I hope it is done in a somewhat friendly manner, though fiercely competitive.
-
lol Chris! Am I wrong in believing your thinking is changing? :D
In contrast to Apollo, there is the example of ISS. Would ISS have happened were it not for the web of international agreements? Americans have no problem backstabbing each other, but let a piece of paper be signed with some potentate across the sea, there's no going back....
I think we should be talking to the Chinese. I'll bet they would be interested in signing some sort of agreement to create a major joint project with the USA and Canada and Russia and EU and Japan and everyone else! But I wonder what that project would be... ;D
-
lol Chris! Am I wrong in believing your thinking is changing? :D
...
Yes, you are wrong. I have not changed in this regard.
-
lol Chris! Am I wrong in believing your thinking is changing? :D
In contrast to Apollo, there is the example of ISS. Would ISS have happened were it not for the web of international agreements? Americans have no problem backstabbing each other, but let a piece of paper be signed with some potentate across the sea, there's no going back....
I think we should be talking to the Chinese. I'll bet they would be interested in signing some sort of agreement to create a major joint project with the USA and Canada and Russia and EU and Japan and everyone else! But I wonder what that project would be... ;D
I know!
Oh, and Robotbeat, you might not get those large space race budgets this time around. Despite your hopes for the competition being friendly, feeding the fires of nationalism could get an out of control blazing inferno. You might even get drafted. You might witness a boom and bust space program that leaves humans going nowhere but LEO for forty years. And then, if humans aren't going to an asteroid and Mars and beyond, why not wait forty or fifty years and let the robots get smarter before we send them beyond LEO. And why are we humans even doing LEO? BTDT. Maybe we should just shut that down too!
I like Warren's ideas much better.
And remember folks, "Asteroid Next" missions: Proving Grounds for future crewed Mars missions is a whole lot more riskier than the "Moon Next". And needed human spaceflight capabilities and experience in cislunar space and on the Moon is what Congress is funding and also the current legal responsibility of NASA.
Public Law 111–267
111th Congress
An Act
To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes.
At:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
....
"TITLE III—EXPANSION OF HUMAN
SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND THE INTERNATIONAL
SPACE STATION AND LOW EARTH
ORBIT
SEC. 301. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT.
(a) FINDINGS
....
Cheers!