-
#340
by
TrevorMonty
on 15 Mar, 2015 16:50
-
1) Option B gives Jon more work (NASA $$).
2) The lower mass boulder should reduce delivery time to DRO by years.
3) Size of Asteroid supplying boulder is not critical. For A option asteroid size is critical has SEP has to haul it back to DRO.
-
#341
by
jongoff
on 16 Mar, 2015 19:36
-
1) Option B gives Jon more work (NASA $$).
2) The lower mass boulder should reduce delivery time to DRO by years.
3) Size of Asteroid supplying boulder is not critical. For A option asteroid size is critical has SEP has to haul it back to DRO.
On #1, it's more like "Option B gives Jon a shot at more work (NASA $$)". There are several Option B variants, and no guarantees that anything we did for Kraken/Prospector will get selected for further funding from NASA. We'd love to stay involved with this, but there's no guarantee we'll see another dime, even if Option B gets selected.
~Jon
-
#342
by
TrevorMonty
on 16 Mar, 2015 20:36
-
For mining Asteroids Option B might a better way to go. The refinery/processing plant can be setup to handle a set boulder size eg <1.5m. Place refinery nearby(10-50km) to the large asteriod and use a smaller lander to retrieve boulders for it. Handling a boulder is easier than a pile rubble
A large asteroid should have plenty of boulders < 1.5m. Oxygen extracted from boulder can supply gas thrusters for lander.
-
#343
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 25 Mar, 2015 16:45
-
-
#344
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:23
-
-
#345
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:27
-
Listening to some soft piano elevator music, ready to take notes.
From twitter it sounds like Jeff Foust and Marcia Smith may be both live-tweeting this as well.
Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline
NASA media telecon on Option A or B for Asteroid Redirect Mission should start in 5 min. Listen at
http://nasa.gov/newsaudio
-
#346
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:30
-
According to the audio page, the following people will be participating in the call from the NASA side:
Robert Lightfoot, NASA associate administrator
Michele Gates, program director, NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission
Lindley Johnson, program executive, NASA's Near Earth Object Program
-
#347
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:32
-
Call starting. Sounds like there will be a Q&A session at the end.
-
#348
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:32
-
Also in the room David Weaver Associate Administrator for Communications.
-
#349
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:33
-
-
#350
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:34
-
Lightfoot: Yesterday finished the MCR for the robotic part of ARM, which will be bringing an asteroid sample back to lunar DRO.
An MCR is a standard review that is held early on to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mission concept and how it meets the needs.
Is it addressing critical nasa needs?
Is it feasible?
Is it ready to enter Phase A development?
-
#351
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:36
-
Lightfoot:
Discussed the various options, discussed flight systems, where we are with SEP--a critical technology we need on the path to Mars.
Discussed Option A for capturing an asteroid in free space, and Option B where they grab a boulder off an asteroid.
Went over actions since the last review, where Option B's higher expense was being traded vs Option A
Did a top level risk assessment
Ongoing risk retirement activities
What sort of scientific and planetary defense objectives can we meet?
What can we realistically accomplish with this mission?
-
#352
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:37
-
Lightfoot:
They had an independent review team discuss where they felt we were.
Then they had a discussion amongst the team on if we met the requirements of an MCR
At the end of the review, it was unanimous that they were ready to move into Phase A.
[the audio is cutting out right now]
-
#353
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:39
-
Lightfoot:
Bringing the best of NASA's human exploration, science, and technology portfolios. Demoing technologies we need for moving out beyond LEO toward Mars
Demoing SEP, doing EVAs from Orion, demonstrating navigation, Rendezvous and Docking
Other benefits of planetary defense activities, including demoing interacting with another body in space and moving it in deep space.
Exciting to see how much the teams have done.
Looking forward to the next phase
At the end of the day, they selected Option B [W00t!]
Now to Q&A
-
#354
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:43
-
First question from Seth Bornstein:
You buried the lede there, saving the announcement for the very end.
Why was Option B the one you picked? What were the cost and time differences? What is the main reason you chose that one?
Lightfoot:
Significant amount of debate around extensibility. What is more extensible as we continue the journey after the ARM mission? The difference in cost was ~$100M, but the system you bring into play (capture mechanism, soft landing, etc) the technology used to grab onto the asteroid are the kind of things we know we'll need when we go to another planetary body. Also, going to another asteroid allows us to survey the asteroid. We know from the asteroids we have seen that they have boulders on them. We'll have a sensor suite on this mission to make an educated choice on which boulder to pick. They'll have 3-5 shots to get the best boulder possible. Seemed like the mission risk was therefore less. Two planetary defense objectives, we'll stationkeep around the bigger asteroid in a halo orbit and see if we can move the bigger asteroid and measure the movement. All of those benefits made it worth the extra money. It also had a better shot from a risk assessment.
Looking at a December 2020 launch date. Leading candidate is asteroid 2008 EV5, which they think they have fairly well characterized, but they'll continue to look for additional candidates. They've had a 75% increase in asteroids they've found recently, so they'll keep looking until a year before the mission to see if there's a better destination
-
#355
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:45
-
Now Jeff Foust from Space News:
What's the next step? What will you be doing this year if you're not picking a target until 2019?
Lightfoot:
Teams glad to be moving, since the schedule will be tight. Acquisition strategy meeting in July. Looking at how they're going to acquire the SEP? Will it be in house? will it be procured? That's the next big milestone. Integrated Requirement Review coming in before Phase B. They'll need to get a cost estimate. Phase A is a refinement phase and risk reduction phase.
-
#356
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:47
-
From Eric Berger:
How big would the boulder be, and when would the timeframe be for astronauts visiting on cislunar space.
Lightfoot:
On this option, they're confident they can get up to 4m, but it'll depend on which one they pick off the body.
Looking at late 2025 for the crew mission.
Eric Berger:
Option B was $100M more or $100M less?
Lightfoot:
$100M more. Refining numbers. Targeting $1.25B not including the launch vehicle.
-
#357
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:48
-
Didn't catch who the next guy was:
When will the encounter with the asteroid be?
Lightfoot:
Arrive there within 2yrs. 215-400 days at the asteroid. Mostly for planetary defense tests--gravity tractor tests.
Follow-up question:
What were some of the risks that made them not choose Option A?
Lightfoot:
Not as extensible, and target identification is harder. Pretty hard to characterize targets of that size. He thinks they would get there, but so far the risk of having a target that they were comfortable with was high. With a larger asteroid they have options on what boulder they pick.
-
#358
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:51
-
Mark Crow of AW&ST:
Can you review what recon you've done on the target, and when would it show up in Lunar DRO
Lightfoot:
It would show up late 2025. Linley Johnson discussing the recon piece.
Johnson:
They have three of them that spacecraft have been to or will be going to. 2008 EV5 is identified as a candidate that they're doing their detailed design against. 2008 EV5 hasn't been visited by a spacecraft, and no plans before ARM to visit it. It has been extensively observed for determining its orbit. It has been observed by IR telescopes. It's a carbonaceous Type C asteroid, which is of particular interest to scientists due to volatiles. It has been observed by radar, so they have good ideas of size, shape, spin, etc. And they have evidence of boulders.
-
#359
by
jongoff
on 25 Mar, 2015 17:53
-
Marcia Smith:
Go over the costs again. Of the $1.25B how much is for stuff you would pursue even if ARM wasn't on your agenda (such as SEP) and how much is for stuff that you wouldn't do without ARM?
Lightfoot:
Numbers aren't in front of him.
Marcia:
Is this going to require a $1.25B increase over the next five years?
Lightfoot:
Not all new money. $300M for SEP was already under the budget. Some of the capture technologies already being covered by their Human Exploration funding. Hope to have more details later.
[didn't catch all the details]