-
#140 by yg1968 on 09 Apr, 2013 15:04
-
Everyone, and I mean everyone, I've asked say NASA teams were not consulted about this before it was announced.....and they are not at all happy about that.
Of course, no one wants to go on quote about that.
I don't know who was consulted. But Bolden mentioned the possibility of bringing an asteroid back a couple of times at hearings.
Furthermore, it seems that some at NASA had been consulted, See this article form January 2, 2013::QuoteResearchers with the Keck Institute for Space Studies in California have confirmed that NASA is mulling over their plan to build a robotic spacecraft to grab a small asteroid and place it in high lunar orbit. The mission would cost about $2.6 billion – slightly more than NASA's Curiosity Mars rover – and could be completed by the 2020s.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23039-nasa-mulls-plan-to-drag-asteroid-into-moons-orbit.html -
#141 by bad_astra on 09 Apr, 2013 15:42
-
Capture of small asteroids by remote SEP tugs might well be the way we slowly ..very slowly, begin to colonize the solar system. I'd love to see boots on the moon or mars before I'm retired, but to see astros mining a rock in space, no matter how they got to it, would be just as interesting. Truth is, if this did not get in the way of, or rather replace, going BEO or lunar surface, most of us would be very supportive of it.
To me, that's NASA doing what it should, pathfinding for others. In a perfect world NASA would have a better budget and be able to do all the projects dear to each one of us. But to be positive, we might get out of this a very good performing SEP tug.
In the meantime, I'll just hope like crazy that Tito is successful with his more daring gambit.
-
#142 by aero on 09 Apr, 2013 16:04
-
Can anyone provide a "for example asteroid" and guess what the delta-V needed to bring it into orbit (HEO, HMO, LM1/2). Then we can guess some of the mission parameters such as thrust and power needed vs. duration of the mission.
Maybe the first example asteroid would be one of those that orbit Earth temporarily then escape again.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328464.600-hundreds-of-tiny-moons-may-be-orbiting-earth.html
-
#143 by BeanEstimator on 09 Apr, 2013 16:05
-
Just to be clear: $2.6B is the cost to move the asteroid to an L point only, and doesn't include the cost of a subsequent manned mission or sample return, correct?
Yes, that is correct, to answer the question simply and in a straightforward fashion. See Figure 17.
To this cost must be added the several billion dollars per year just to keep the SLS job force employed, with no launches; several more billion for the DSH; several more billion for the actual launch itself to the rock; a few more billion for the capture mechanism; and finally, ignoring the development costs and test flights to evolve SLS to the predetermined size, because these costs have already been characterized as sunk costs.
all costs from the $2.6B Keck estimate also assume everything is TRL6...
"Assumes all technologies are at TRL Level 6 – the estimate does not include any cost for technology development up to TRL 6"
This, IMHO, is also suspect:
"Represents the most likely estimate based on cost-risk simulation results"
It's fine to present the ML, but in general cost risk estimates include the actual s-curve...why? Because almost anyone can interpret the relative risk posture of the estimate via the slope and range...Why bother telling me you did a cost risk estimate and not even include the most basic visual output of the analysis (e.g. cost s-curve)? Also, why not include even a simple statement on what was actually varied in the risk analysis and by how much (assuming this was inputs-based)
From the format, it looks like a NAFCOM estimate - which is all fine and good but makes it even more questionable why the s-curve wasn't included...that's a standard output from NAFCOM...and it would have been really easy to throw a sentence in there about how mass was varied and by how much...
And lastly, if you actually did a 'cost risk simulation' adding 30% reserves to the ML at the end is a real head scratcher. The whole point of a risk analysis (cost, schedule, joint, whatever) is to provide a probabilistic range of values so we don't have to go off and apply some 30% rule of thumb to a point estimate. Show the s-curve, highlight a point (like the ML) for budgetary purposes (or the actual budget if it's already set) and provide the confidence levels. I mean come on guys...
Sigh. Sorry, had to vent. I know studies like this don't often allow a lot (if any) time for the estimator too so perhaps I am jumping the gun here with my nits. Apologies in advance to the poor guy or gal reading this who may be thinking to themselves, "man i only got like 2 days to generate estimate". Been there.
-
#144 by JohnFornaro on 09 Apr, 2013 16:55
-
Everyone, and I mean everyone, I've asked say NASA teams were not consulted about this before it was announced.....and they are not at all happy about that.
Of course, no one wants to go on quote about that.
I don't know who was consulted. But Bolden mentioned the possibility of bringing an asteroid back a couple of times at hearings....
Well, Chris didn't specifically mention that he had chatted with Mr. Bolden. -
#145 by R7 on 09 Apr, 2013 17:30
-
Can anyone provide a "for example asteroid" and guess what the delta-V needed to bring it into orbit (HEO, HMO, LM1/2).
The Keck paper has one on page 29. 170m/s delta-v to capture the asteroid. Not much but mass estimate is 1300mt...
Person asking about application in Mars mission should read that page too. It takes six years to do the 170m/s dv. To move 500mt in Mars mission in a practical time frame using SEP requires getting into megawatt range. -
#146 by JohnFornaro on 09 Apr, 2013 17:42
-
all costs from the $2.6B Keck estimate also assume everything is TRL6...
That is correct. It will probably come as a surprise to some that the asteroid capture mechanism itself is "assumed" to be at TRL6. As is DSH, ECLSS, 40 kW class SEP, and more.
More? "reliable robotic anchoring capability"; "Structural characterization, especially of the surface layers"; "dust levitation and settling behavior [mitigation thereof]"; "gravity tractor (GT) concept"; "Proximity operations"; "extraction and purification of water"; "autoreduction of the major mineral magnetite"; "using the released CO as a reagent for the extraction, separation, purification, and fabrication of iron and nickel products". All of these assumed to be at TRL6. No exceptions given.
The chart at Figure 17 is remarkably concise, and is probably considered adequate to initiate political support in the right districts, particularly, since this estimate appears to cost only about $100M more than Curiosity.
The study is a "false flag", since there is not an iota of truth in the cost estimate, and there is no widely perceived need nor any pragmatic utility for the information that the mission would discover. They even admit that they are "following up on the ESA Don Quijote study".
My estimate is $46B. Since "delivery of 500 t of material to a high lunar orbit would cost of order $20B", it would cheaper to start launching rocks and ice ASAP.
Of course, they could save "bill-yuns" by eliminating people; their fall back position" "A mission like this even decoupled from human exploration would engage a whole new generation of space interested persons".
"It is important to place the asteroid in a location that is reasonably close to and accessible from Earth (within a few days journey from LEO)" It's nice how close the Moon is, when it suits one's purposes, but how foolish it is when it doesn't suit.
Did they mention that the asteroid is "unique"? Yeah. Here: "There are roughly a hundred million NEAs approximately 7-m diameter". -
#147 by Malderi on 09 Apr, 2013 17:48
-
I've seen lots of statistical estimates for undiscovered asteroids in given sizes/orbits, given what we've already discovered and various solar system formation models.
This mission is pretty constrained to a given size and orbit, so given those models, we should have a fairly good idea of the likelihood that a candidate asteroid should be found (and, indeed, finding one may help validate some of those models). Has anyone run those numbers? Is the survey included in the mission estimate cost? -
#148 by aero on 09 Apr, 2013 19:03
-
The NASA job will be sized to use the SLS. Period.
I wonder what size asteroid retrieval a commercial mission would undertake.
I mentioned tiny earth moons in my above post. Those moons are estimated to be one tonne, more or less. They orbit the Earth at near C3=0, which results in the delta V requirement of 140 m/s to bring one back to EML-1/2. That could be done with a VASIMR and less than 3 kg of reaction mass for the asteroid payload plus the reaction mass needed for the VASIMR and systems. That seems pretty do-able to me and lower mass electric propulsion systems could be even more easily do-able.
Once there are some small telescopes in space looking for objects to recover, it will only take a few $100 Million to bring one back. And after the first one is brought back, repeat missions should be a piece of cake. So who can calculate the time needed to make the round trips from EML-1 to C3=0 and back to complete a subsequent mission? -
#149 by JohnFornaro on 09 Apr, 2013 19:36
-
The NASA job will be sized to use the SLS. Period.
I wonder what size asteroid retrieval a commercial mission would undertake.
I mentioned tiny earth moons in my above post. ...
Please do not mention small missions in this forum. -
#150 by Robotbeat on 09 Apr, 2013 19:57
-
You folks are discussing at large something that will be nothing. This is simply political window-dressing to make it look as if we as a nation are doing something with NASA HSF other than renting seats on Soyuz. This will go no farther than computer graphics and PowerPoint slides to be shown at the visitor's centers of assorted NASA facilities...
Because, to be honest, it's internal and external opposition to anything the Administration would propose (other than a bunch more money) that guarantees that result.
Anything the President could propose is highly constrained... Constrained because of Congress (HAS to use SLS/Orion), because of budget (yay, austerity... President Bama has asked for more funding for NASA in the past, but Congress said no... Now Bama has jumped on the deficit hawk bandwagon), and because there's practically mutiny going on inside NASA with regard to the plans to go forward (lots of Constellation fans, still...).
ANY attempt at a new path forward runs across people defending their fiefdoms in NASA. Bolden has the job of trying to herd cats. He's used to the military command structure where people actually do what they're told instead of cultivating internal dissent... NASA is more like a confederation of independent agencies than it is a monolithic organization. To be honest, the more I see how little control Bolden has over NASA, the more I think Bolden needs to be replaced by someone willing to totally restructure NASA's leadership and fire a LOT of higher-ups. I don't see how NASA can get anything done until then, everyone is pulling in every which direction. -
#151 by MP99 on 09 Apr, 2013 20:11
-
ANY attempt at a new path forward runs across people defending their fiefdoms in NASA.
I wonder if there's really no dissent between army / navy / air force on how to spend the military budget?
Admittedly, Gen Bolden has quite a few centres to deal with.
cheers, Martin -
#152 by Robotbeat on 09 Apr, 2013 20:13
-
Small?The NASA job will be sized to use the SLS. Period.
I wonder what size asteroid retrieval a commercial mission would undertake.
I mentioned tiny earth moons in my above post. ...
Please do not mention small missions in this forum.
Both NASA and the commercial mission plan talked about launching the unmanned portion using an Atlas V. If the commercial mission is "small," so is the NASA one. (Though why would you define "small" by the launch vehicle?) -
#153 by JohnFornaro on 09 Apr, 2013 20:32
-
... (Though why would you define "small" by the launch vehicle?)
I don't. You are asserting that I do, without acknowledging that the mission the other guy mentioned would cost less than a twentieth of the Keck mission. -
#154 by TomH on 09 Apr, 2013 20:45
-
I do not think this would ever happen. I can just see the political adds on TV now. "(Insert name of politician or party here) wants to spend $2.6B of taxpayer money to move a rock from one place in outer space to another place in outer space. Throwing money we don't have into a black hole shows just how much lunacy they have."
Regardless of whether there is or isn't scientific value, we have to be realistic about how the general public will see it and how easily it could be ridiculed by those against it. Unless Unobtanium can be retrieved for a profit, it would make everyone who believes in the space program look like a complete fool. Any president at the time will not take the risk. It is a mission that literally won't fly. -
#155 by SpacexULA on 09 Apr, 2013 20:58
-
Regardless of whether there is or isn't scientific value, we have to be realistic about how the general public will see it and how easily it could be ridiculed by those against it. Unless Unobtanium can be retrieved for a profit, it would make everyone who believes in the space program look like a complete fool. Any president at the time will not take the risk. It is a mission that literally won't fly.
See the last A list public official who came out for space hard, Newt Gingrich paid a price for his moon base talk. Doubt it lost him the primary, but it definitely didn't help and made him look foolish in the debates.
-
#156 by Robotbeat on 09 Apr, 2013 22:25
-
TomH: We are paying $1 billion to return 100 grams of asteroid with Osiris-Rex. This plan would return 100kg for an extra cost of two and a half billion. But somehow you propose that politicians will make a big deal of the latter but not of the former?
Why do people hate this so much but give a pass on everything else? This is irrational. -
#157 by QuantumG on 09 Apr, 2013 23:14
-
Everyone, and I mean everyone, I've asked say NASA teams were not consulted about this before it was announced.....and they are not at all happy about that.
Did they forget that they work for the government or something?
-
#158 by TomH on 09 Apr, 2013 23:19
-
TomH: We are paying $1 billion to return 100 grams of asteroid with Osiris-Rex. This plan would return 100kg for an extra cost of two and a half billion. But somehow you propose that politicians will make a big deal of the latter but not of the former?
Why do people hate this so much but give a pass on everything else? This is irrational.
I do believe politicians will make a big deal of it, because as part of the manned space program, it is easier to make it a target. The unmanned program has been very successful of late. MSF, not so much. Politicians will attack anything that gives an advantage to themselves. That bridge in Alaska may have generated far more than enough new commerce to have paid for itself. Nevertheless, it was easy for the other side to ridicule it as the pork barrel Bridge to Nowhere.
As far as hating, I did not say that I hate anything. This would not be my choice of a goal, Mars would. Nonetheless, I am open to listening to any serious reasoning. -
#159 by pathfinder_01 on 09 Apr, 2013 23:54
-
TomH: We are paying $1 billion to return 100 grams of asteroid with Osiris-Rex. This plan would return 100kg for an extra cost of two and a half billion. But somehow you propose that politicians will make a big deal of the latter but not of the former?
Why do people hate this so much but give a pass on everything else? This is irrational.
People dislike it because quite frankly it is an make work project for SLS that doesn't yeild much for manned spaceflight or commerce.
If it were completely unmanned and focused on say producing a economic or scientific result for earth I might be supportive but having dragged an asteroid to lunar orbit spending $2 billion to send humans for what purpose? It would be cheaper to send a robot for the task.
In terms of science what again requires that it be moved?
In terms of commerce what type of asteroid is being grabbed is going to be as important as grabbing it. What type of commerce(i.e. Platinum mining, ISRU) are we going to be doing and what does a Manned mission add to this?
