-
#20
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Dec, 2011 18:33
-
(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
-
#21
by
Hodapp
on 08 Dec, 2011 18:44
-
To quote a famous classic show:
"One of these days! Pow! To the moon, Alice!!!"
That's all that needs to be said.
-
#22
by
spectre9
on 08 Dec, 2011 19:12
-
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.
-
#23
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Dec, 2011 20:27
-
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.
-
#24
by
Ox
on 08 Dec, 2011 21:54
-
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.
-
#25
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Dec, 2011 22:06
-
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).
-
#26
by
spectre9
on 09 Dec, 2011 04:33
-
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
-
#27
by
dks13827
on 09 Dec, 2011 22:42
-
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. )
-
#28
by
AnalogMan
on 13 Dec, 2011 14:30
-
A related paper just published, and due to be presented next year:
Mars as a Destination in a Capability-Driven FrameworkEarth 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
-
#29
by
Hodapp
on 13 Dec, 2011 14:45
-
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.
-
#30
by
michaelwy
on 21 Jul, 2012 16:11
-
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?
-
#31
by
Jim
on 21 Jul, 2012 16:41
-
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
-
#32
by
Sparky
on 21 Jul, 2012 17:03
-
Near Earth Asteroids.
-
#33
by
edkyle99
on 21 Jul, 2012 18:25
-
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
-
#34
by
Prober
on 21 Jul, 2012 20:44
-
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.
-
#35
by
Danderman
on 24 Jul, 2012 21:58
-
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.
-
#36
by
Robotbeat
on 24 Jul, 2012 22:22
-
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).
-
#37
by
HappyMartian
on 25 Jul, 2012 15:13
-
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...
-
#38
by
Robotbeat
on 25 Jul, 2012 15:33
-
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.
-
#39
by
Warren Platts
on 26 Jul, 2012 04:50
-
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"...
