-
#480
by
Robotbeat
on 31 Mar, 2015 23:35
-
It comes down to space policy. The law states that the goal of NASA human spaceflight is to get to Mars. ARM has to be passed by the same folks who passed that law. ARM will use the money for getting to Mars so it should further that goal. That it does other things is good, but if those other things aren't useful for Mars and cost more to do then they will get a pretty skeptical look. There is very limited funding for a Mars mission so every dollar deserves to be spent to gain the most capability for a Mars mission.
You're forgetting that NASA is also tasked with expanding the economic sphere deeper into space, general scientific inquiry about space, and planetary protection. Some of these things are given extra funding, some are not (Congress LOVES to pass unfunded mandates). ARM actually accomplishes all of those things, and could also be used for Phobos/Deimos ISRU which definitely does help Mars.
ARM is one of those things that we need to develop in order to become a truly spacefaring species and be able to travel wherever in the solar system we please. ARM can certainly be improved, but I'm actually VERY impressed by the capabilities we'd get for just $1.25 billion.
-
#481
by
Endeavour_01
on 01 Apr, 2015 03:45
-
I am definitely not a fan of ARM (at least the human part of it). ARM was dreamed up endorsed by the policy wonks in the White House in order to keep the Presidents promise of a "journey" to an asteroid by 2025 without giving NASA the proper resources to go. ...
edit:Also, you'll have to tell the scientists and engineers at the Keck Institute in California that they're secretly policy wonks for Obama.
You are correct on that score. I have modified my post accordingly.
I don't care if it is Obama or Mother Teresa who is pushing ARM. I personally don't believe that it is the best mission to do. Sure Congress has some responsibility and they should be putting in more resources but it is the Obama administration that is championing this mission and making it the policy of the US to avoid the moon.
Yet if you read the rest of my post you will see that I agree with you in wanting to see how ARM turns out and I am not going to scream for its cancellation just because I am not a fan.
-
#482
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Apr, 2015 03:51
-
It's $1.25 billion. NASA can't go to the Moon for that price, and that price is no more than a typical robotic exploration mission and certainly wouldn't prevent NASA from going to the Moon if there were money and will to do so.
Again, why the silence on a mission like Osiris-Rex?
-
#483
by
QuantumG
on 01 Apr, 2015 04:04
-
Because, remember, it's not a comparison of astronauts-visit-captured-asteroid vs astronauts-visit-lunar-orbit-again in the minds of some - it's asteroid vs something-better. What they imagine that to be is undefined - just come up with something better!
Wishes and horses.
-
#484
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Apr, 2015 04:19
-
If this mission is going to be done I would rather see a partnership with NASA and commercial space. Let the agency redirect the asteroid and then let a commercial entity explore and mine it for resources. Keep NASA focused on new technology for a Mars mission...
From what I can tell from their agreements with Planetary Resources and DSI, that's exactly what the plan is! The only difference is NASA is going to visit the asteroid on the SLS/Orion first crewed flight (as opposed to visiting an empty point in space which is what they'd do if tree were no ARM).
-
#485
by
jongoff
on 01 Apr, 2015 05:02
-
If this mission is going to be done I would rather see a partnership with NASA and commercial space. Let the agency redirect the asteroid and then let a commercial entity explore and mine it for resources. Keep NASA focused on new technology for a Mars mission...
From what I can tell from their agreements with Planetary Resources and DSI, that's exactly what the plan is! The only difference is NASA is going to visit the asteroid on the SLS/Orion first crewed flight (as opposed to visiting an empty point in space which is what they'd do if tree were no ARM).
Well, I wouldn't go as strong as saying that's the plan. Though in the telecon they did state that heading into the acquisition strategy meeting in July that they would be reaching out to industry, so there's the potential that could become the plan.
~Jon
-
#486
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 01 Apr, 2015 05:10
-
It comes down to space policy. The law states that the goal of NASA human spaceflight is to get to Mars. ARM has to be passed by the same folks who passed that law. ARM will use the money for getting to Mars so it should further that goal. That it does other things is good, but if those other things aren't useful for Mars and cost more to do then they will get a pretty skeptical look. There is very limited funding for a Mars mission so every dollar deserves to be spent to gain the most capability for a Mars mission.
You're forgetting that NASA is also tasked with expanding the economic sphere deeper into space, general scientific inquiry about space, and planetary protection. Some of these things are given extra funding, some are not (Congress LOVES to pass unfunded mandates). ARM actually accomplishes all of those things, and could also be used for Phobos/Deimos ISRU which definitely does help Mars.
ARM is one of those things that we need to develop in order to become a truly spacefaring species and be able to travel wherever in the solar system we please. ARM can certainly be improved, but I'm actually VERY impressed by the capabilities we'd get for just $1.25 billion.
How would you "improve" ARM?
-
#487
by
redliox
on 01 Apr, 2015 06:39
-
It comes down to space policy. The law states that the goal of NASA human spaceflight is to get to Mars. ARM has to be passed by the same folks who passed that law. ARM will use the money for getting to Mars so it should further that goal. That it does other things is good, but if those other things aren't useful for Mars and cost more to do then they will get a pretty skeptical look. There is very limited funding for a Mars mission so every dollar deserves to be spent to gain the most capability for a Mars mission.
You're forgetting that NASA is also tasked with expanding the economic sphere deeper into space, general scientific inquiry about space, and planetary protection. Some of these things are given extra funding, some are not (Congress LOVES to pass unfunded mandates). ARM actually accomplishes all of those things, and could also be used for Phobos/Deimos ISRU which definitely does help Mars.
ARM is one of those things that we need to develop in order to become a truly spacefaring species and be able to travel wherever in the solar system we please. ARM can certainly be improved, but I'm actually VERY impressed by the capabilities we'd get for just $1.25 billion.
How would you "improve" ARM?
If I had to offer some constructive criticism, for starters if everything is meant to be a test of technology to
eventually get humans to Mars, have ARM bring an unmanned Orion with it. It would help establish what Orion could do beyond Earth, test how heavily radiation may affect humans without risking a live crew, and perhaps even establish how effectively the Orion could be flown either remotely or autonomously.
If such a test went well, then on a second ARM-style flight humans could explore an asteroid directly.
-
#488
by
sdsds
on 01 Apr, 2015 06:48
-
It demonstrates SEP at large scale, something clearly needed.
Yes, maturing the technology by conducting a mission that utilizes SEP at large scale should be something "obviously" appropriate for NASA. In the 2012 NRC roadmaps in-space propulsion was Technology Area 02. The report for that area gave electric propulsion highest priority (see attached figure, taken from
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/501329main_TA02-ID_rev3-NRC-wTASR.pdf).
-
#489
by
notsorandom
on 01 Apr, 2015 13:39
-
It's $1.25 billion. NASA can't go to the Moon for that price, and that price is no more than a typical robotic exploration mission and certainly wouldn't prevent NASA from going to the Moon if there were money and will to do so.
Again, why the silence on a mission like Osiris-Rex?
Osiris-Rex is a New Frontier mission. The Decadal Survey proposes a set of potential missions for the New Frontiers program which the scientific community has reached consensus on as answering important scientific questions. Teams then formulate mission concepts which are evaluated and competed. Osiris-Rex is the result of a process which gives a high degree of confidence in the merit of the mission, costing techniques, and probability of success.
-
#490
by
dror
on 01 Apr, 2015 14:01
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
-
#491
by
TrevorMonty
on 01 Apr, 2015 15:09
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
NASA are considering commercial sat SEP buses for this mission. If LM can produce a SEP around 40Kw they maybe in with a chance. NB nobody is flying a SEP craft this powerful at present.
-
#492
by
jongoff
on 01 Apr, 2015 18:40
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
NASA are considering commercial sat SEP buses for this mission. If LM can produce a SEP around 40Kw they maybe in with a chance. NB nobody is flying a SEP craft this powerful at present.
SEP was one of the areas most likely to be done via public/private partnership, though if they do who knows if a Jupiter-derived system would come out on top or not.
~Jon
-
#493
by
dror
on 02 Apr, 2015 16:53
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
NASA are considering commercial sat SEP buses for this mission. If LM can produce a SEP around 40Kw they maybe in with a chance. NB nobody is flying a SEP craft this powerful at present.
SEP was one of the areas most likely to be done via public/private partnership, though if they do who knows if a Jupiter-derived system would come out on top or not.
~Jon
Thanks !
Though my question was meant to be more about reusability than about Jupiter specifically or SEP.
What I meant to ask was if you think it is possible to perform a boulder retrieval mission with a reusable bus?
The heavy SEP bus could then be refueled and sent to grab and retrieve additional boulders, while the boulder would remain with a simple station keeping bus.
-
#494
by
jongoff
on 02 Apr, 2015 18:32
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
NASA are considering commercial sat SEP buses for this mission. If LM can produce a SEP around 40Kw they maybe in with a chance. NB nobody is flying a SEP craft this powerful at present.
SEP was one of the areas most likely to be done via public/private partnership, though if they do who knows if a Jupiter-derived system would come out on top or not.
~Jon
Thanks !
Though my question was meant to be more about reusability than about Jupiter specifically or SEP.
What I meant to ask was if you think it is possible to perform a boulder retrieval mission with a reusable bus?
The heavy SEP bus could then be refueled and sent to grab and retrieve additional boulders, while the boulder would remain with a simple station keeping bus.
Yes, I think making the bus refuelable and then reusing it after the initial ARM mission makes a lot of sense. That's why I've always been a fan of having the boulder capture system be on a separable lander.
~Jon
-
#495
by
TrevorMonty
on 02 Apr, 2015 22:30
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
NASA are considering commercial sat SEP buses for this mission. If LM can produce a SEP around 40Kw they maybe in with a chance. NB nobody is flying a SEP craft this powerful at present.
SEP was one of the areas most likely to be done via public/private partnership, though if they do who knows if a Jupiter-derived system would come out on top or not.
~Jon
Thanks !
Though my question was meant to be more about reusability than about Jupiter specifically or SEP.
What I meant to ask was if you think it is possible to perform a boulder retrieval mission with a reusable bus?
The heavy SEP bus could then be refueled and sent to grab and retrieve additional boulders, while the boulder would remain with a simple station keeping bus.
So make it a 2 stage vehicle, have capture stage with small maneuvering propulsion, leaving SEP stage free to separate and do something else.
Good idea but I don't think this mission needs the added complexity.
-
#496
by
A_M_Swallow
on 03 Apr, 2015 02:19
-
If I had to offer some constructive criticism, for starters if everything is meant to be a test of technology to eventually get humans to Mars, have ARM bring an unmanned Orion with it. It would help establish what Orion could do beyond Earth, test how heavily radiation may affect humans without risking a live crew, and perhaps even establish how effectively the Orion could be flown either remotely or autonomously.
If such a test went well, then on a second ARM-style flight humans could explore an asteroid directly.
Why? Orion is a Moon vehicle with Earth re-entry capability not a Mars vehicle. Orion can be used to transfer the astronauts to and from the larger Mars Transfer Vehicle.
-
#497
by
Steam Chaser
on 03 Apr, 2015 11:32
-
It's $1.25 billion. NASA can't go to the Moon for that price, and that price is no more than a typical robotic exploration mission and certainly wouldn't prevent NASA from going to the Moon if there were money and will to do so.
Again, why the silence on a mission like Osiris-Rex?
Within OSIRIS-REx is what (to my mind anyway) amounts to a Discovery-class mission to study asteroid Bennu with science-class instruments. Discovery missions NEAR and Dawn have some similarities to that part of it. Part of the comparison between the ARM and OSIRIS-REx would have to be based on the study of the destination asteroid at the asteroid. ARM is more of a technology demonstration/robotic precursor hybrid than a Planetary Science mission, so it shouldn't need to deliver the same class of science measurements at the asteroid, but it should be an interesting comparison.
Also, OSIRIS-REx delivers the sample to Earth. ARM requires a separate mission to retrieve the samples.
I do recall some skepticism about the $1.25 billion figure, too.
Having said all that, I do prefer option B. With option A, I'd be worried that the ARM's search for asteroids that can be moved would divert NEO search efforts away from larger NEOs (of more planetary defense concern). Option B also should have an easier job finding suitable targets, and also have a better chance of finding reachable "interesting" targets (e.g.: in terms of volatiles, asteroid type, etc).
-
#498
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 04 Apr, 2015 20:49
-
Can a Jupiter-SEP act as a bus for this mission? (Or any orher reusable bus for that matter)
If refueled, it can act as a reusable bolder retriever.
NASA are considering commercial sat SEP buses for this mission. If LM can produce a SEP around 40Kw they maybe in with a chance. NB nobody is flying a SEP craft this powerful at present.
SEP was one of the areas most likely to be done via public/private partnership, though if they do who knows if a Jupiter-derived system would come out on top or not.
~Jon
Thanks !
Though my question was meant to be more about reusability than about Jupiter specifically or SEP.
What I meant to ask was if you think it is possible to perform a boulder retrieval mission with a reusable bus?
The heavy SEP bus could then be refueled and sent to grab and retrieve additional boulders, while the boulder would remain with a simple station keeping bus.
Yes, I think making the bus refuelable and then reusing it after the initial ARM mission makes a lot of sense. That's why I've always been a fan of having the boulder capture system be on a separable lander.
~Jon
Jon,
Do you think NASA will go for the boulder capture system be on a separable lander so that the bus can be reused for another boulder after refueling?
-
#499
by
jongoff
on 05 Apr, 2015 05:03
-
Jon,
Do you think NASA will go for the boulder capture system be on a separable lander so that the bus can be reused for another boulder after refueling?
Last I heard, the lander vs single spacecraft trade was still actively being investigated. Having a separate lander reduces the impact of the boulder capture sequence on the SEP design, and makes it easier to reuse the SEP after bringing the boulder back. But it adds more complexity to the mission.
~Jon