-
#40 by Warren Platts on 26 Jul, 2012 05:03
-
(rant on)
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
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)filmsmovies 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. -
#41 by Robotbeat on 26 Jul, 2012 18:09
-
It stands up better than analysis talking about mining the Moon.
-
#42 by Rocket Science on 26 Jul, 2012 18:23
-
Hey you two don’t put me in the middle of this…
-
#43 by TomH on 27 Jul, 2012 19:27
-
"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. -
#44 by sdsds on 27 Jul, 2012 20:38
-
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.
-
#45 by vulture4 on 28 Jul, 2012 02:48
-
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.
-
#46 by sdsds on 28 Jul, 2012 03:00
-
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.
-
#47 by Warren Platts on 28 Jul, 2012 06:03
-
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 ____________________________________________. -
#48 by Robotbeat on 28 Jul, 2012 06:16
-
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. -
#49 by Warren Platts on 28 Jul, 2012 07:19
-
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!
-
#50 by Danderman on 28 Jul, 2012 14:49
-
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.
-
#51 by Prober on 28 Jul, 2012 15:55
-
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
-
#52 by Warren Platts on 28 Jul, 2012 18:16
-
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. -
#53 by Danderman on 28 Jul, 2012 18:22
-
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.
-
#54 by HappyMartian on 29 Jul, 2012 01:10
-
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.
-
#55 by Warren Platts on 29 Jul, 2012 03:51
-
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. -
#56 by HappyMartian on 29 Jul, 2012 06:45
-
....
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/
-
#57 by Robert Thompson on 29 Jul, 2012 07:31
-
"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. -
#58 by Nathan on 29 Jul, 2012 08:43
-
If we want to go to mars - go to mars! There is only so much money in the pot.
-
#59 by HappyMartian on 29 Jul, 2012 09:52
-
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!
