Author Topic: 2016 HO3 is a quasi satellite of earth - 40m to 100m Apollo Asteroid  (Read 28337 times)

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4341
  • Liked: 1576
  • Likes Given: 1316
A cubesat definitely /could/ have high-Isp propulsion. Just because none have so far doesn't mean they couldn't.
Correct
A_M_Swallow reminded us of Busek's program to build high Isp engines for smallsats and cubesats.
Quote
Technology Development Project Selections announced on September 4, 2013. These should be available soon and in need of a mission (unless they were cancelled).
http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-development-project-selections/#.V2YKmDVaHIV
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6202
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2322
  • Likes Given: 782
A cubesat definitely /could/ have high-Isp propulsion. Just because none have so far doesn't mean they couldn't.
Correct
A_M_Swallow reminded us of Busek's program to build high Isp engines for smallsats and cubesats.
Quote
Technology Development Project Selections announced on September 4, 2013. These should be available soon and in need of a mission (unless they were cancelled).
http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-development-project-selections/#.V2YKmDVaHIV

The challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of).

~Jon

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4341
  • Liked: 1576
  • Likes Given: 1316
A cubesat definitely /could/ have high-Isp propulsion. Just because none have so far doesn't mean they couldn't.
Correct
A_M_Swallow reminded us of Busek's program to build high Isp engines for smallsats and cubesats.
Quote
Technology Development Project Selections announced on September 4, 2013. These should be available soon and in need of a mission (unless they were cancelled).
http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-development-project-selections/#.V2YKmDVaHIV

The challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of).

~Jon

Correct.  Isp goes up with increasing power. From the Busek presentation going from 60W to 360W raises the Isp by 10%, from 3500 sec to 3850 sec., but several of the former engines may be enough. So the optimum would tend more towards a smallsat than a cubesat, with significant solar panels and redundancy for a year in interplanetary space, but not necessarily something on the scale of Dawn of Deep Space 1.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3806
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 158
The challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of).
By power limited do you mean power/mass? I would have thought there was a scaling problem in the other direction for solar power/mass. (im not claiming any experience, just laymans logic)

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8513
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 353
  • Likes Given: 155
The challenge with high Isp cubesat propulsion is that cubesats tend to be very power limited, which means they probably optimize out to a lower Isp than a bigger satellite would (and they already typically optimize out to far lower Isp than ion engines are capable of).
By power limited do you mean power/mass? I would have thought there was a scaling problem in the other direction for solar power/mass. (im not claiming any experience, just laymans logic)

He means straight forward power limited. Cubesats have small solar panels so it unlikely to have more than 50-100 watts of power. About the same as the lamp in my lounge used to use.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9637
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 465
Forgetting efforts to design a CubeSAT mission here, what about a more traditional survey, what are the requirements for a Discovery class mission to this object?

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3806
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 158
He means straight forward power limited. Cubesats have small solar panels so it unlikely to have more than 50-100 watts of power. About the same as the lamp in my lounge used to use.
So is the problem that a thruster of half the power shoots out particles at less speed, rather than just half as many? Is this where the scaling problem is?

Comega said something directly above that could be interpreted that way, (edit, and on re-reading my other interpretations don't make sense).. so the problem is that it is hard making smaller thrusters efficient if you try to keep similar ISP?.. I guess like it is hard building a pistol to shoot bullets as fast as a rifle? There are totally different approaches* but I guess then you are starting from scratch?

*Come to think of it, such as light sails, but there are other electronic ones I have seen mentioned.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2016 01:19 AM by KelvinZero »

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4341
  • Liked: 1576
  • Likes Given: 1316
I have a message from a gracious gentleman at the Arkansas Sky Observatories who says that the idea that 2016 H03 has low density has been disavowed. My guess is that it was not based on good evidence.
(Perhaps like why Percival Lowell had Clyde Tombaugh search that part of the sky. There were mathematical errors that suggested a large mass there. Instead of a giant, Tombaugh found a dwarf planet by luck. Fortuneately he found Pluto before the errors were corrected!)

Edit: So we have no evidence that 2016 H03 is anything but a natural asteroid trapped in an orbit such that any year we could launch a less-than-one_year round trip to it with practical velocities.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2016 04:33 AM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Liked: 555
  • Likes Given: 278
If 2016 HO3 is in fact a natural 40-100m asteroid (likely) and if it also proves to be type with valuable resources either metallic or carbon (based on an exploration mission), how practical would it be to move it to a more useful location to be exploited? What would be required? Where would you move it?
« Last Edit: 07/01/2016 10:29 PM by Ludus »

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
If 2016 HO3 is in fact a natural 40-100m asteroid (likely) and if it also proves to be type with valuable resources either metallic or carbon (based on an exploration mission), how practical would it be to move it to a more useful location to be exploited? What would be required? Where would you move it?
One possibility might be to use the "mirror bees" or "laser bees" concept. Thrust is generated by.vehicles using lasers or concentrated sunlight to heat regolith while orbiting or in the proximity of the asteroid. Mining vehicles might be designed around a solar concentrator for PV power and use it to act as a "mirror bee" to alter the asteroid,s orbit while waiting for the launch window for Earth return. Alternatively, a solar powered laser might provide power and propulsion for a mining vehicle and the laser used during the wait.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Liked: 555
  • Likes Given: 278
http://kunder.hey-ho.no/zaptec/media/zaptec_plasma_drilling.pdf

I'd think some version of this sort of plasma drill with a mass driver could do it with a pretty big either solar or nuclear power source.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1638
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 43
If 2016 HO3 is in fact a natural 40-100m asteroid (likely) and if it also proves to be type with valuable resources either metallic or carbon (based on an exploration mission), how practical would it be to move it to a more useful location to be exploited? What would be required? Where would you move it?

For some asteroids that normally pass close to earth moon neighborhood, a small nudge can bring the asteroid close to the moon. A lunar fly by can cut velocity relative to earth. This wouldn't be an option for 2016 HO3, it doesn't come close to the earth.

Moreover, it's inclination is 8 degrees.

There are asteroids such as 2008 HU4 that could be parked in high lunar orbit for just a small amount of delta V. Sadly HO3 isn't one of them.

I talk about catching an asteroid here.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8513
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 353
  • Likes Given: 155
Can we send a reconnaissance satellite to HO3 for less that say $50 million?
A second satellite may be needed to relay the radio signals.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9637
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 465
You would think that some at NASA would be jumping at the chance to send a Pioneer class probe to H03 ASAP, since that would be a great target for the Asteroid mission.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1638
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 43
You would think that some at NASA would be jumping at the chance to send a Pioneer class probe to H03 ASAP, since that would be a great target for the Asteroid mission.

It's not a great target for the Asteroid redirect mission. See my post above.

Offline knotnic

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
From http://fluidandreason.com/constantq/, looks like someone crunching real numbers is convinced 2016 HO3 is viable for targeting with a large cubesat with high ISP.  (This contest would release it from the spent upper stage of SLS EM-1 mission after TLI.)

Quote
The ConstantQ™ thrusters will be used on the CubeQuest competition’s Miles spacecraft. This craft features 12 thrusters with a custom tank design, taking the craft to lunar orbit and to asteroid 2016 HO3.
....
The ConstantQ™ is a hybrid electrostatic thruster, featuring an exceptionally compact and power-efficient design with a self-neutralizing plasma flow. The thruster gives 1.25 mN of thrust (modes up to 2.4mN available), 760 sec Isp (modes over 3,500 sec available), at 5.5 Watts total input power (3W beam power) when tested in Argon. Our “Model H” system includes 4 thruster heads, high voltage electronics, and 1kg of solid Iodine in a 1.5kg total, 0.5U, 22W package, giving a 8kg 6U satellite 995 m/s delta-v. The Model H’s thrusters are canted allowing for both primary propulsion and attitude control without use of moving parts – an important factor in mission assurance.


Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Canada
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 593
You would think that some at NASA would be jumping at the chance to send a Pioneer class probe to H03 ASAP, since that would be a great target for the Asteroid mission.

It's not a great target for the Asteroid redirect mission. See my post above.

Think @Danderman isn't thinking of the Asteroid redirect mission. Seems a small stream of mini spacecrafts with duo cameras & SEP should be enough for flyby look.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 313
Why not Dragon asteroid 2017 as a Mars mission precursor!?
because people who become Mars obsessed aren't into rocks
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28564
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8502
  • Likes Given: 5544
Why not Dragon asteroid 2017 as a Mars mission precursor!?
because people who become Mars obsessed aren't into rocks
Also, since the goal is Mars and the primary difficulty there (the problem which must be solved no matter the other details, and which must be solved to start major even robotic preparations) is EDL, why spend the money on a launch to a rock that isn't testing EDL?

If it's deep space operational experience and high speed reentry you want to test, a loop around the Moon would work, too, and would be faster.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1785
  • Likes Given: 3387
Why not Dragon asteroid 2017 as a Mars mission precursor!?
because people who become Mars obsessed aren't into rocks
Also, since the goal is Mars and the primary difficulty there (the problem which must be solved no matter the other details, and which must be solved to start major even robotic preparations) is EDL, why spend the money on a launch to a rock that isn't testing EDL?

If it's deep space operational experience and high speed reentry you want to test, a loop around the Moon would work, too, and would be faster.

And heck, if you're also testing landing ability, loop one around the Moon and land another one on it.

It's sort of reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh having Ryan Aircraft in San Diego build him a long-duration airplane capable of flying the Atlantic.  Getting it to New York for its departure could have been done one of two ways -- take the wing off, put it all on a couple of train cars, and ship it to New York via rail, or just fly it there.

Just flying non-stop from San Diego to St. Louis set a world's record for non-stop flight, and that was just the warm-up.

Doing a couple of quick shots to the Moon, to test out a few systems, isn't a bad idea.  Rather like setting a new world's record just getting your aircraft to the starting line.

But depending on delta-V budgets, I will also say that visiting a NEO as your equivalent of getting the spacecraft to the starting line might be more impressive to potential partners, who might see the Moon as been-there, done-that.  I bet the Moon would garner more public interest, though...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Tags: