-
#140 by muomega0 on 10 Nov, 2014 19:27
-
Nov 2014 Nature: Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year. We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up
ARM is a multibillion-dollar stunt to retrieve part of an asteroid and bring it close to Earth where astronauts can reach it. It will require an ancillary spacecraft deploying either a huge capture bag or a Rube Goldberg contraption resembling a giant arcade-game claw. Neither technology is useful for getting humans to Mars.
This gateway for human space exploration requires three things:
1- a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit;
2- extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars;
3- developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin.
Nov 2014 Sci America A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit. ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P. -
#141 by JohnFornaro on 10 Nov, 2014 20:12
-
Doggone it! Why'd ya bring this thread back to life? We were all hoping Congress would forget it!
-
#142 by Nilof on 10 Nov, 2014 21:19
-
Nov 2014 Nature: Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year. We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up
ARM is a multibillion-dollar stunt to retrieve part of an asteroid and bring it close to Earth where astronauts can reach it. It will require an ancillary spacecraft deploying either a huge capture bag or a Rube Goldberg contraption resembling a giant arcade-game claw. Neither technology is useful for getting humans to Mars.
This gateway for human space exploration requires three things:
1- a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit;
2- extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars;
3- developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin.
Nov 2014 Sci America A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit. ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P.
While more thorough surveys would be nice, I strongly disagree with the conclusion. The manned visit to the asteroid is the less important part, while the ARM is the really, really important part of the mission which enables practical asteroid ISRU or planetary protection.
Using the figures from the Keck report, asteroid retrieval can net you over 50 times the IMLEO mass launched as asteroid rock in Lunar orbit, and for stony asteroids at least one third of that mass is Oxygen. With LOX ISRU, that is an insanely large mass multiplier. The LOX can be used for anything from extended lunar exploration to sending very large spacecraft to Mars. -
#143 by muomega0 on 11 Nov, 2014 16:30
-
Visit, Deflect, Retrieve—Least Energy/Cost to Most Required. The “ARM” is Retrieve. So the mission could be AVM, ADM, or APM for “Political”. Before visit, one needs to survey.Nov 2014 Nature: Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year. We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up
ARM is a multibillion-dollar stunt to retrieve part of an asteroid and bring it close to Earth where astronauts can reach it. It will require an ancillary spacecraft deploying either a huge capture bag or a Rube Goldberg contraption resembling a giant arcade-game claw. Neither technology is useful for getting humans to Mars.
This gateway for human space exploration requires three things:
1- a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit;
2- extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars;
3- developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin.
Nov 2014 Sci America A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit. ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P.
While more thorough surveys would be nice, I strongly disagree with the conclusion. The manned visit to the asteroid is the less important part, while the ARM is the really, really important part of the mission which enables practical asteroid ISRU or planetary protection.
Using the figures from the Keck report, asteroid retrieval can net you over 50 times the IMLEO mass launched as asteroid rock in Lunar orbit, and for stony asteroids at least one third of that mass is Oxygen. With LOX ISRU, that is an insanely large mass multiplier. The LOX can be used for anything from extended lunar exploration to sending very large spacecraft to Mars.
No justification is given for "retrieve" because the costs of mission to retrieve one (very small, with little chance of resources ) asteroid are significantly higher than visiting and/or deflecting many asteroids. The figure from the Nature article (attached) by Binzel clearly identifies that moving the rock to L2 is the exact opposite of recommendation 2: extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out *to* Mars.
To head *TO* Mars, a LEO ZBO depot is THE number one priority--HLV not required. The re-usable deep space habitat, the L2 Based Gateway voyager--not stuck in one location, is key piece of hardware for crew missions. In-space propulsion, economic access to space, crew health, space power--the other space grand challenges, have equal or greater priority than ISRU. For example, and reusable EP and chemical tugs that travel to and from an asteroid from L2, which will eventually cycle to Mars. To pay for all this shift resources away from SLS/Orion.
Spending a few *millions* on ISRU beginning with ground demonstrations in conjunction with the asteroid surveys is also required FIRST to justify the ISRU feasibility versus many other competing needs.
For NASA, the direction continues to be *to* Mars with a new reuseable, launch vehicle independent architecture; and for the Country, consolidate the Atlas/Delta/SLS into a single common LV -
#144 by jongoff on 12 Nov, 2014 04:57
-
Visit, Deflect, Retrieve—Least Energy/Cost to Most Required. The “ARM” is Retrieve. So the mission could be AVM, ADM, or APM for “Political”. Before visit, one needs to survey.Nov 2014 Nature: Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year. We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up
ARM is a multibillion-dollar stunt to retrieve part of an asteroid and bring it close to Earth where astronauts can reach it. It will require an ancillary spacecraft deploying either a huge capture bag or a Rube Goldberg contraption resembling a giant arcade-game claw. Neither technology is useful for getting humans to Mars.
This gateway for human space exploration requires three things:
1- a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit;
2- extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars;
3- developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin.
Nov 2014 Sci America A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit. ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P.
While more thorough surveys would be nice, I strongly disagree with the conclusion. The manned visit to the asteroid is the less important part, while the ARM is the really, really important part of the mission which enables practical asteroid ISRU or planetary protection.
Using the figures from the Keck report, asteroid retrieval can net you over 50 times the IMLEO mass launched as asteroid rock in Lunar orbit, and for stony asteroids at least one third of that mass is Oxygen. With LOX ISRU, that is an insanely large mass multiplier. The LOX can be used for anything from extended lunar exploration to sending very large spacecraft to Mars.
No justification is given for "retrieve" because the costs of mission to retrieve one (very small, with little chance of resources ) asteroid are significantly higher than visiting and/or deflecting many asteroids. The figure from the Nature article (attached) by Binzel clearly identifies that moving the rock to L2 is the exact opposite of recommendation 2: extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out *to* Mars.
To head *TO* Mars, a LEO ZBO depot is THE number one priority--HLV not required. The re-usable deep space habitat, the L2 Based Gateway voyager--not stuck in one location, is key piece of hardware for crew missions. In-space propulsion, economic access to space, crew health, space power--the other space grand challenges, have equal or greater priority than ISRU. For example, and reusable EP and chemical tugs that travel to and from an asteroid from L2, which will eventually cycle to Mars. To pay for all this shift resources away from SLS/Orion.
Spending a few *millions* on ISRU beginning with ground demonstrations in conjunction with the asteroid surveys is also required FIRST to justify the ISRU feasibility versus many other competing needs.
For NASA, the direction continues to be *to* Mars with a new reuseable, launch vehicle independent architecture; and for the Country, consolidate the Atlas/Delta/SLS into a single common LV
I actually think getting a significant asteroid sample (we're talking 80-500mT here) back to a lunar orbit where you can develop ISRU capabilities is far more important than trying to expedite a NASA Mars mission that's never going to happen.
I agree with you that depots are important, but NASA isn't going to fund them because they politically destroy the case for SLS, and so long as Senator Shelby is parked on the appropriation committee over NASA, that's going to be their focus. I'll take a consolation prize of having a second moon in cislunar space that is now easy to visit for any commercial or NASA entity that's interested.
~Jon -
#145 by MATTBLAK on 12 Nov, 2014 05:11
-
I don't have a problem with the ARM mission in principle. But I would far rather see that Orion be docked with a Habitat Module - say an adapted ISS 'Zvezda' type module or similar - and have those craft link up with the S.E.P. module, augmented with a chemical stage(s) and go several million kms into deep space to a pretty large asteroid! Having a pair of Astronauts clambering over a huge 'flying mountain' while we watch on high-definition TV would give us this generation's Hillary & Tenzing moment. Or better yet; Phobos.
But as we know; no bucks - no Buck Rogers...
-
#146 by jongoff on 12 Nov, 2014 05:14
-
I don't have a problem with the ARM mission in principle. But I would far rather see that Orion be docked with a Habitat Module - say an adapted ISS 'Zvezda' type module or similar - and have those craft link up with the S.E.P. module, augmented with a chemical stage(s) and go several million kms into deep space to a pretty large asteroid! Having a pair of Astronauts clambering over a huge 'flying mountain' while we watch on high-definition TV would give us this generation's Hillary & Tenzing moment. Or better yet; Phobos.
But as we know; no bucks - no Buck Rogers...
Honestly, I'd rather have a testbed for ISRU available than a stunt flags and footprints mission.
~Jon -
#147 by MATTBLAK on 12 Nov, 2014 05:49
-
'Flags & Footprints' - I totally get your context and you preference - but you are dissing one option to champion your personal preference instead; which is admittedly a good one. But; I think that phrase 'F & F' has become a pejorative, cliched putdown for Manned Space Exploration in general, and I sometimes wish people would stop using it so liberally. You might as well go ahead and call ISS or any other Space Station 'flags & floating'. Anything that stops short of colonization or at least a Base is 'flags & footprints' for most people now, it seems. Though Apollos 15, 16 & 17 were far more than 'F & F' - they were scientific exploration. I just want to see people go somewhere!!
Unless you put a space station at a large asteroid or Phobos, F & F is all you're gonna get anyway - I don't think you could characterize such a mission as much else. Unless of course you bring an extensive scientific package with you and perform ISRU operations at Phobos or a large asteroid. But strictly speaking, you wouldn't need a crew for an ISRU technology testbed anyway. -
#148 by clongton on 12 Nov, 2014 10:25
-
I don't have a problem with the ARM mission in principle. But I would far rather see that Orion be docked with a Habitat Module - say an adapted ISS 'Zvezda' type module or similar - and have those craft link up with the S.E.P. module, augmented with a chemical stage(s) and go several million kms into deep space to a pretty large asteroid! Having a pair of Astronauts clambering over a huge 'flying mountain' while we watch on high-definition TV would give us this generation's Hillary & Tenzing moment. Or better yet; Phobos.
But as we know; no bucks - no Buck Rogers...
Honestly, I'd rather have a testbed for ISRU available than a stunt flags and footprints mission.
~Jon
Totally agree with real ISRU v.s. any stunt mission. But I would offer that the lunar surface is also a really good place for ISRU, with more potential for genuine after-test application than the surface of an extremely small asteroid. -
#149 by jtrame on 12 Nov, 2014 11:06
-
And then again, any manned mission could be classified as a stunt mission, especially one that breaks new ground. Being first will always carry the "flags & footprints" persona and that's not all bad IMO. Combine the ISRU experiments with the manned mission.
-
#150 by Dasun on 12 Nov, 2014 12:55
-
Flags and Footprints are not a stunt - indeed they are the necessary first step of exploration and they can produce good science returns (J-Class Apollo missions!).
As always look to history for guidance, Captain Cook did not take the first fleet to Botany Bay - that came after his flags and footprints proved something useful was possible.
Flags and footprints are explorations first stage - ISRU and colonisation follows at a later, sometimes much later, date. -
#151 by mike robel on 12 Nov, 2014 17:48
-
Unmanned Missions and Flags and Foot Prints = RECONNAISSANCE!
-
#152 by Proponent on 13 Nov, 2014 08:57
-
And then again, any manned mission could be classified as a stunt mission, especially one that breaks new ground. Being first will always carry the "flags & footprints" persona and that's not all bad IMO. Combine the ISRU experiments with the manned mission.
I think what determines whether a ground-breaking mission is a stunt or not is whether it is followed up by other missions. As geophysicist (and, later, presidential science advisor) Frank Press said of the cancelation of the last few Apollo missions, "I think history will judge the American space protgram as a stunt if exploration is cut in this way." -
#153 by MATTBLAK on 13 Nov, 2014 10:23
-
The A.R.M. mission might end up being perceived as a one-off 'stunt' if other more advanced asteroid or a Phobos mission doesn't follow it. That's why Apollo is sometimes disrespected, because many folk bemoan the fact that a lunar outpost didn't follow it in the 1980s. But whatever the context; I think Apollo was one of the premier achievements of humanity, made all the more special in some ways because of it's uniqueness.
But I digress - whatever else the A.R.M. ends up being, if gone ahead with - humans will be traveling farther than ever before in one of the most advanced craft ever, examining a primordial object close and in person. If this could be combined with a habitat module and a stay of several weeks then a valuable deep space technology 'shakeout' could be done to investigate comms, radiation mitigation, life support systems and general operations in almost-deep space. -
#154 by CNYMike on 13 Nov, 2014 22:43
-
If ARM works, you know it will be all over the media. Space web sites may resound with a collective "Meh," but the public will be wowed. And an image of the Earth and Moon together from somewhere past the Moon's orbit will be all over the place.
As to its value in the scheme of things, I've given it some thought and it does have a virtue in that when sending humans farther into space than we've been in a long time, it makes sense to start with something similar to what we've already done, but just push the limits. What will ARM involved? Docking a manned craft (Orion) with an unmanned one. We've got quite good at that during the Shuttle era. Only with ARM this will happen in a retrograde orbit around the Moon. Farther than we've been, but close enough to get home. And it will be the first time a manned ship uses a body's gravity to change its course, in this case the Moon. That'll be a first for the manned program.
A space documentary interviewed a General Tom Stafford and he said something that has stayed with me: "Let's say we'd decided to go to the Moon and there had been no Gemini. It would have been a disaster. Without Gemini, there would have been no Apollo." If Mars is our era's Apollo, we need a Gemini equivalent -- maybe several -- before we send a crew away for months or years with no real abort option and no real-time contact with Earth. ARM could be a good place to start. Whether there would be a progression of getting progressively farther away, who knows. But with a potential Mars landing being called "90 seconds of terror" because of the physics involved, something closer to home with fewer unknowns wouldn't be a bad place to start. -
#155 by muomega0 on 14 Nov, 2014 00:58
-
All the events clearly indicate that SLS will be cancelled. If you are willing to be 'compromised', that is your choice. Soon even NSF will stop discussing earth bound transportation systems.
Visit, Deflect, Retrieve—Least Energy/Cost to Most Required. The “ARM” is Retrieve. So the mission could be AVM, ADM, or APM for “Political”. Before visit, one needs to survey.Nov 2014 Nature: Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year. We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up
ARM is a multibillion-dollar stunt to retrieve part of an asteroid and bring it close to Earth where astronauts can reach it. It will require an ancillary spacecraft deploying either a huge capture bag or a Rube Goldberg contraption resembling a giant arcade-game claw. Neither technology is useful for getting humans to Mars.
This gateway for human space exploration requires three things:
1- a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit;
2- extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars;
3- developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin.
Nov 2014 Sci America A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit. ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P.
While more thorough surveys would be nice, I strongly disagree with the conclusion. The manned visit to the asteroid is the less important part, while the ARM is the really, really important part of the mission which enables practical asteroid ISRU or planetary protection.
Using the figures from the Keck report, asteroid retrieval can net you over 50 times the IMLEO mass launched as asteroid rock in Lunar orbit, and for stony asteroids at least one third of that mass is Oxygen. With LOX ISRU, that is an insanely large mass multiplier. The LOX can be used for anything from extended lunar exploration to sending very large spacecraft to Mars.
No justification is given for "retrieve" because the costs of mission to retrieve one (very small, with little chance of resources ) asteroid are significantly higher than visiting and/or deflecting many asteroids. The figure from the Nature article (attached) by Binzel clearly identifies that moving the rock to L2 is the exact opposite of recommendation 2: extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out *to* Mars.
To head *TO* Mars, a LEO ZBO depot is THE number one priority--HLV not required. The re-usable deep space habitat, the L2 Based Gateway voyager--not stuck in one location, is key piece of hardware for crew missions. In-space propulsion, economic access to space, crew health, space power--the other space grand challenges, have equal or greater priority than ISRU. For example, and reusable EP and chemical tugs that travel to and from an asteroid from L2, which will eventually cycle to Mars. To pay for all this shift resources away from SLS/Orion.
Spending a few *millions* on ISRU beginning with ground demonstrations in conjunction with the asteroid surveys is also required FIRST to justify the ISRU feasibility versus many other competing needs.
For NASA, the direction continues to be *to* Mars with a new reuseable, launch vehicle independent architecture; and for the Country, consolidate the Atlas/Delta/SLS into a single common LV
I actually think getting a significant asteroid sample (we're talking 80-500mT here) back to a lunar orbit where you can develop ISRU capabilities is far more important than trying to expedite a NASA Mars mission that's never going to happen.
I agree with you that depots are important, but NASA isn't going to fund them because they politically destroy the case for SLS, and so long as Senator Shelby is parked on the appropriation committee over NASA, that's going to be their focus. I'll take a consolation prize of having a second moon in cislunar space that is now easy to visit for any commercial or NASA entity that's interested.
One does not need an asteroid nearby to develop ISRU...the ISRU equipment is pretty much independent of its destination. Tech maturation can occur on the (Earth's) ground.. much cheaper too. The SLS programs promises that the ISRU flight demo will be funded as soon as Orion is certified....
Supporting SLS/Orion for a Consolation Prize of ISRU! NP! SLS/Orion will fit ISRU right into the schedule, provide inadequate funding, and keep all the folks employed for decades with its 2030s milestone to inspire the kids, with the new slogan "For the benefit ofall mankind{this space for sale}."
Per the generous post of "Numbersguy101" on another blog.
Step 1. Attempt to divert Science directorate funds.
Step 2. If successful, fund the robotic probe to fetch smallest possible asteroid that's soonest.
(If not, keep up the story anyway till the 20-20's by funding studies)
Step 3. Assure secondary, tertiary, etc targets (for if delays).
Step 4: Generate nice art. Further avoid discussion of dates.
Step 5 (year 20-20-something): Place on manifest after initial SLS/Orion flights.
Step 6: Procure 2 customized ICPS's.
Step 7: Wait.
Step 8: (year 20-30-something) Launch SLS/Orion, rendezvous w. object, etc. return.
(2040s) depots, radiation shielding, DSH, closed ECLSS, communications, right after the six new engine programs required for 'explorin, oh and the ISRU flight was cancelled because it has an inadequate TRL level ( only ground tested !!!) not to mention that it will destroy the need for SLS. Besides, all that LOX and LH2 and methane produced by ISRU would be used to power ISRU to produce more propellants, and the extra propellant would just boil away since it does not have a depot nearby. ISRU exists to exist!
Is there a better path forward? Yes! The great news is that without Orion/SLS, ISRU, moon, asteroids, Mars precursors are possible before your ISRU+SLS milestone is cancelled
Up for a REAL challenge?
-
#156 by Nilof on 15 Nov, 2014 18:07
-
ARM does not require SLS. The Falcon Heavy is perfectly fine for going to lunar orbit with say, a Dragon and a Cygnus docked together. However, if you are developing the SLS it has to be tested sooner or later, and randezvous with a captured asteroid is better test of SLS/Orion than a simple free return trajectory round the Moon. The ARM does not require the SLS in any way, but the technology it matures synergizes well with ANYTHING you happen to be doing beyond LEO, whether it be HSF or robotic exploration.
-
#157 by Danderman on 17 Dec, 2014 21:07
-
I have two caveats about this mission:
Unlikely to be funded
and
Unlikely the asteroid capture thingy will work.
Apart from those two caveats, this is precisely what NASA should be doing: exploring the Solar System.
-
#158 by Robotbeat on 18 Dec, 2014 03:52
-
IMHO, both capture techniques can be made to work. I mean, for goodness sake, if we can do this:
(Seriously, watch it again. It STILL seems crazy, even knowing it worked quite successfully on the first try.)
...then a bloody capture mechanism is certainly doable. -
#159 by savuporo on 18 Dec, 2014 05:23
-
Unlikely to be funded
I found this morbidly funny on NasaWatchQuoteIron Duke
Why not aim high and go for a Mars capture? It's way more exciting and equally likely to occur.
Up for a REAL challenge?