-
"Asteroid Next" missions: Proving Grounds for future crewed Mars missions
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2011 03:41
-
-
#1
by
Bubbinski
on 07 Dec, 2011 04:32
-
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?
-
#2
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 07 Dec, 2011 04:37
-
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.
-
#3
by
Martin FL
on 07 Dec, 2011 04:41
-
Great read!
-
#4
by
Jason1701
on 07 Dec, 2011 04:50
-
That article exemplifies why NSF is the best space site on the Internet.
-
#5
by
kkattula
on 07 Dec, 2011 06:04
-
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.
-
#6
by
Robert Thompson
on 07 Dec, 2011 06:24
-
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.
-
#7
by
blasphemer
on 07 Dec, 2011 06:37
-
A good plan overall, except the timeline. First visit to NEO in 2028? Thats quite disappointing.
-
#8
by
Robert Thompson
on 07 Dec, 2011 07:22
-
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.
-
#9
by
sewand
on 07 Dec, 2011 14:21
-
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?
-
#10
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 07 Dec, 2011 20:17
-
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.
-
#11
by
Pheogh
on 07 Dec, 2011 20:23
-
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
-
#12
by
Garrett
on 07 Dec, 2011 20:51
-
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.
-
#13
by
Jorge
on 07 Dec, 2011 21:57
-
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.
-
#14
by
Ox
on 08 Dec, 2011 06:20
-
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.
-
#15
by
baddux
on 08 Dec, 2011 15:44
-
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.
-
#16
by
rcoppola
on 08 Dec, 2011 17:00
-
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.
-
#17
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Dec, 2011 17:37
-
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."
-
#18
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Dec, 2011 17:48
-
(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)
-
#19
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Dec, 2011 18:09
-
(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!
