Huzzah! :w00t:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34116126/ns/technology_and_science-space/
QuotePlan for human mission to asteroid gains speed
Trips could build confidence in long-duration stints at the moon and Mars
By Leonard David
Space.com's Space Insider columnist
updated 6:02 p.m. ET Nov. 23, 2009
BOULDER, Colo. - Call it Operation: Plymouth Rock. A plan to send a crew of astronauts to an asteroid is gaining momentum, both within NASA and industry circles.
Not only would the deep space sojourn shake out hardware, it would also build confidence in long-duration stints at the moon and Mars. At the same time, the trek would sharpen skills to deal with a future space rock found on a collision course with Earth.
In Lockheed Martin briefing charts, the mission has been dubbed "Plymouth Rock — An Early Human Asteroid Mission Using Orion." Lockheed is the builder of NASA's Orion spacecraft, the capsule-based replacement for the space shuttle.
Study teams are now readying high-level briefings for NASA leaders — perhaps as early as this week — on a pilgrimage to an asteroid, along with appraisals of anchoring large, astronaut-enabled telescopes far from Earth, a human precursor mission to the vicinity of Mars, as well as an initiative to power-beam energy from space to Earth.
The briefings have been spurred in response to the recent Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee and the option of a "Flexible Path" to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
On this path, the committee suggested, humans would visit sites never visited before and extend U.S. savvy in how to operate in space — while traversing greater and greater distances from Earth.
Building momentum
The merits of a human mission to a Near Earth Object were detailed here Nov. 18 during a two-day meeting of the Small Bodies Assessment Group.
SBAG was established by NASA in 2008 to identify scientific priorities and opportunities for the exploration of asteroids, comets, interplanetary dust, small satellites and Trans-Neptunian Objects. The group also provides scientific input on the utility of asteroids and comets in support of human space activities.
The new studies are viewed as an iterative process — to be weighed both by NASA and the White House, said Paul Abell, a research scientist at the Planetary Science Institute detailed to the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas and working in the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Directorate. "It's going to take a bit of time. I don't think there's going to be a quick decision."
How the White House will react to a human trek to an asteroid is beyond anybody's crystal ball. However, undertaking the effort has garnered the attention of Lockheed Martin — builder of the space shuttle replacement — the Orion spacecraft.
Asteroid-bound Orion
The Plymouth Rock mission study began a couple years ago, said Josh Hopkins, in the advanced programs for human space flight division at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company in Denver, Colo.
"We have been looking at what other interesting science missions could be done with Orion ... and asteroids were one of the ideas that percolated to the top," Hopkins told the SBAG attendees. He made it clear that the firm's study was done using corporate funds and doesn't imply that NASA has endorsed company results.
Initial looks at the NEO venture involve the coupling of two Orion spacecraft.
In this situation, a two-person Orion would link up with an unpiloted sister craft that's loaded with extra fuel, food, water, and oxygen. It would be tossed into orbit — as well as an Earth departure stage — by NASA's planned Ares V heavy-lift booster.
Bridging the moon and Mars
While detailed NASA and industry looks at the makings of a NEO mission are still in play — including use of inflatable modules to add crew volume — "it's an attractive option," Hopkins said. "It's really a good middle-step between the moon and Mars."
However, maximizing astronaut safety, dealing with such things as trash management, cosmic rays, sketching out abort scenarios must still be addressed, Hopkins noted. But given the core attributes already built into the Orion system "we think it does make sense for the human spaceflight program to be investigating this," he said.
Between NASA and industry looks, the flight of astronauts to a NEO could occur in the 2020 to 2025 time period. The round-trip mission would take some six months.
There would be no landing on the asteroid. Rather, they would park in close proximity, then jet backpack onto the object. Once there, science gear would be deployed as samples of the space rock are gathered — on the order of a couple hundred pounds (100 kilograms).
"We assume staying at the asteroid for five days. They could stay a week or two. But staying for a month gets hard," Hopkins explained. While on duty, astronauts would engage in gathering data useful to understand the internal makeup of the asteroid. That, in turn, is solidly helpful, he added, in dealing with harmful space rocks on a worrisome trajectory dangerous to Earth.
Today, there are a handful of candidate asteroids that could be visited a couple decades from now, said Clark Chapman, an asteroid expert at Southwest Research Institute here in Boulder. That number will grow as more ground and space-based instruments come on-line, surely increasing the discovery rate of NEOs, he stated.
"We'd really like a larger pool of candidate targets so that we could visit a NEO that has cool properties and would have the greatest scientific return," Chapman told SPACE.com.
Profound impact
"Human exploration is for human purposes," said Mark Sykes, chair of the Small Bodies Assessment Group. He is also director of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Ariz .
Science by itself doesn't drive human exploration, Sykes noted, "but we can benefit, scientifically, from this. We'll take advantage of whatever opportunities come our way!"
Sykes said that he had briefed the committee that conducted the recent review of U.S. human spaceflight plans.
Specifically, Sykes said that he underscored the prospect that NEOs represent a location of resources that could have a profound impact on expanding sustainable human operations beyond low Earth orbit. They could be a well spring of water, he added, as well as useful for life support and radiation shielding.
If so, asteroids may well act as a lynch pin for people living, working and populating space, Sykes suggested. But are those resources recoverable in an economic way?
"It's within the realm of consideration. Of course, a lot more homework needs to be done," Sykes stressed.
© 2009 Space.com. All rights reserved. More from Space.com.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm doubtful. Just as little scientific purpose as manned missions to the moon or mars but a tiny fraction of the flag waving factor.
Columbus was the first modern European in the Americas, yey him, but who the hell cares or knows who was the first to the Azores?
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2009, 07:19:01 AM
I'm doubtful. Just as little scientific purpose as manned missions to the moon or mars but a tiny fraction of the flag waving factor.
Columbus was the first modern European in the Americas, yey him, but who the hell cares or knows who was the first to the Azores?
The telescope would be rather useful from a scientific perspective.
However, if this thing happens (which it won't), it won't be because of the science. It'll be because of the flag-waving.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2009, 07:19:01 AM
I'm doubtful. Just as little scientific purpose as manned missions to the moon or mars but a tiny fraction of the flag waving factor.
Columbus was the first modern European in the Americas, yey him, but who the hell cares or knows who was the first to the Azores?
The Azores didn't have the possibility to destroy the world, nor could their exploitation have global economic ramifications.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2009, 07:19:01 AM
Columbus was the first modern European in the Americas, yey him, but who the hell cares or knows who was the first to the Azores?
I care. -_-
IIRC the Moors are thought to have discovered the Azores around 1100 or so, but some Portuguese dude is credited with the 'official' discovery in the early 1400s.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 07:44:39 AM
The Azores didn't have the possibility to destroy the world, nor could their exploitation have global economic ramifications.
An asteroid can't destroy the world, nor can it be exploited in an economical manner.
Eh. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.
I don't think this is so far fetched? NASA has been talking about doing more landings, Mars and the Moon. Then the new Space Plane will be available in some years, which is supposed to enable tasks and some limited travel to be done easier than can be done with the Shuttles.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 07:44:39 AM
The Azores didn't have the possibility to destroy the world, nor could their exploitation have global economic ramifications.
An asteroid can't destroy the world, nor can it be exploited in an economical manner.
You know what I meant, destroy civilization.
Yes it can.
Quote from: KRonn on November 24, 2009, 09:21:34 AM
I don't think this is so far fetched? NASA has been talking about doing more landings, Mars and the Moon. Then the new Space Plane will be available in some years, which is supposed to enable tasks and some limited travel to be done easier than can be done with the Shuttles.
NASA talks about all sorts of things that will never happen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 07:44:39 AM
The Azores didn't have the possibility to destroy the world, nor could their exploitation have global economic ramifications.
An asteroid can't destroy the world, nor can it be exploited in an economical manner.
You know what I meant, destroy civilization.
Yes it can.
NASA's not going to be landing on any earth-killers. It would be unwise.
And no, you can't make money from exploiting asteroids.
:rolleyes:
[Publius Neilicus]No, Timotheos the Cripple, man will never be harnessing the power of boiling water nor bottling lightning for our use.[/Publius Neilicus]
It took them nearly 2,000 years to get that down. Humanity doesn't have 2,000 years to figure out how to work asteroids.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 02:37:35 PM
It took them nearly 2,000 years to get that down. Humanity doesn't have 2,000 years to figure out how to work asteroids.
We're getting better at getting better.
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2009, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 02:37:35 PM
It took them nearly 2,000 years to get that down. Humanity doesn't have 2,000 years to figure out how to work asteroids.
We're getting better at getting better.
In some areas. In spaceflight, we've remained rather static since the late 1960s. When it comes to consumer electronics, we've come a long way. When it comes to propulsion techniques and their applications, it's still 1968.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2009, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 02:37:35 PM
It took them nearly 2,000 years to get that down. Humanity doesn't have 2,000 years to figure out how to work asteroids.
We're getting better at getting better.
In some areas. In spaceflight, we've remained rather static since the late 1960s. When it comes to consumer electronics, we've come a long way. When it comes to propulsion techniques and their applications, it's still 1968.
1968 nuclear propulsion is good enough, we're just too cheap and behold to alarmists to build it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 06:05:33 PM
1968 nuclear propulsion is good enough, we're just too cheap and behold to alarmists to build it.
More the first than the second. There is no country with both money and leadership to engage in such an undertaking.
Neil, you're trying so hard to sound academic, you're missing an obvious point: we can blow shit up to tug quantities of certain materials not occurring on Earth. Drag it to the atmosphere, slap some heat shielding on it, and fish it out of the water when it splashes down.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 24, 2009, 09:33:55 PM
Neil, you're trying so hard to sound academic, you're missing an obvious point: we can blow shit up to tug quantities of certain materials not occurring on Earth. Drag it to the atmosphere, slap some heat shielding on it, and fish it out of the water when it splashes down.
And if there is a small miscalculation in orbital entry; goodbye Albuquerque.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 24, 2009, 09:33:55 PM
Neil, you're trying so hard to sound academic, you're missing an obvious point: we can blow shit up to tug quantities of certain materials not occurring on Earth. Drag it to the atmosphere, slap some heat shielding on it, and fish it out of the water when it splashes down.
I'm arguing from a practical standpoint. While you could do something similar to that (although dynamiting asteroids in space is problematic because you have to chase down the ejecta, and launching mass at the Earth is dangerous), we won't.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 24, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
And if there is a small miscalculation in orbital entry; goodbye Albuquerque.
That didn't stop us from slinging pretty frikkin' big Apollo capsules. And do I need to say the words "Skylab" and "Australia?"
An asteroid, even a modest chunk of one, is probably far worse than any flimsy human contraption (unless it's loaded with lots of nuclear crap).
And while an asteroid chunk may have lots of nice metals on it, the overhead costs in terms of prepping it up in space, and then retrieval from the ocean floor, probably make it, as Neil said, financially unsound. Unless spacelift costs come down exponentially.
And that will probably never happen unless we learn to manipulate gravity. Which will probably never happen.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 24, 2009, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 24, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
And if there is a small miscalculation in orbital entry; goodbye Albuquerque.
That didn't stop us from slinging pretty frikkin' big Apollo capsules. And do I need to say the words "Skylab" and "Australia?"
The Apollo capsules massed virtually nothing. Large chunks of ore mass significantly more.
Besides, bringing Skylab down deliberately into Australia and launching much larger masses at the Earth from far away are totally different.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 24, 2009, 10:08:42 PM
An asteroid, even a modest chunk of one, is probably far worse than any flimsy human contraption (unless it's loaded with lots of nuclear crap).
And while an asteroid chunk may have lots of nice metals on it, the overhead costs in terms of prepping it up in space, and then retrieval from the ocean floor, probably make it, as Neil said, financially unsound. Unless spacelift costs come down exponentially.
And that will probably never happen unless we learn to manipulate gravity. Which will probably never happen.
And how do you get it there in a reasonable amount of time?
Jetspacks! Squee!
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/manned-mission-asteroid-could-be-stepping-stone-mars?page=
QuoteGearing Up for Manned Mission To An Asteroid
The Plymouth Rock project could be a stepping stone to Mars
By Clay Dillow Posted 11.24.2009 at 2:17 pm 3 Comments
Orion, Coupled For Asteroid Mission Lockheed Martin is studying the feasibility of a manned mission to an asteroid employing two Orion spacecraft connected at the nose. Lockheed Martin
Cue the Aerosmith soundtrack; a plan to send a manned space mission to land on an asteroid is gaining traction within both NASA and the aerospace industry as experts look to bridge the feasibility gap between lunar missions and an eventual rendezvous with Mars. Of course, no party is ruling out the possibility of an Armageddon-esque trip to a Near Earth Object (NEO) on a harmful trajectory, should the need arise in the future.
While neither NASA or the White House has signed off on -- or even offered funding to study -- such a mission, briefing charts put together by Lockheed Martin, maker of the space agency's next-gen passenger spacecraft, detail how a mission might work. It's not as far-fetched, or far away, as one might think, with a mission to an NEO possible in a 2020-2025 time frame.
In Lockheed's scenario, aptly titled "Plymouth Rock," a two-person Orion craft would hook up with an unpiloted sister craft loaded with extra water, oxygen and other supplies. Orion would not land on the NEO itself, but would post up nearby while astronauts use jet backpacks to reach the object's surface. That's right: jetpacks.
Once there, scientists could gather compositions samples of the rock and set up other scientific equipment that could be left behind on the NEO. That information would be extremely valuable to science, not to mention give scientists the upper hand should a worrisome rock ever come hurtling directly toward earth.
Right now it's only an idea on a briefing board, but both NASA and aerospace industry wonks feel like the mission is not only feasible, but could offer invaluable experience as a stepping stone between current low earth orbit excursions and forays deeper into space.
Did we mention there will be jetpacks?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
While neither NASA or the White House has signed off on -- or even offered funding to study -- such a mission, briefing charts put together by Lockheed Martin, maker of the space agency's next-gen passenger spacecraft, detail how a mission might work.
There's the key.
Without that, all these "projects", and the recycled "ZOMG, WE WILL GO TO MARS/MOON/ASTEROID/VULCAN BY 20-WHATEVER" that we get every few years, are just fodder for space-geek porn.
And, of course, Lockheed-Martin trying to get more milk out of the government teat to "study" something they probably know they won't have to actually build for quite some time...if ever.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 25, 2009, 12:27:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
While neither NASA or the White House has signed off on -- or even offered funding to study -- such a mission, briefing charts put together by Lockheed Martin, maker of the space agency's next-gen passenger spacecraft, detail how a mission might work.
There's the key.
Without that, all these "projects", and the recycled "ZOMG, WE WILL GO TO MARS/MOON/ASTEROID/VULCAN BY 20-WHATEVER" that we get every few years, are just fodder for space-geek porn.
And, of course, Lockheed-Martin trying to get more milk out of the government teat to "study" something they probably know they won't have to actually build for quite some time...if ever.
They've already been contracted to build the Orion space capsule. There's not much else that needs to be built for a simple mission like that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2009, 01:36:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 25, 2009, 12:27:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
While neither NASA or the White House has signed off on -- or even offered funding to study -- such a mission, briefing charts put together by Lockheed Martin, maker of the space agency's next-gen passenger spacecraft, detail how a mission might work.
There's the key.
Without that, all these "projects", and the recycled "ZOMG, WE WILL GO TO MARS/MOON/ASTEROID/VULCAN BY 20-WHATEVER" that we get every few years, are just fodder for space-geek porn.
And, of course, Lockheed-Martin trying to get more milk out of the government teat to "study" something they probably know they won't have to actually build for quite some time...if ever.
They've already been contracted to build the Orion space capsule. There's not much else that needs to be built for a simple mission like that.
Simple? There is nothing simple in that mission... Near Earth Objects are closer to us but that doesn't necessarily mean less Delta V or shorter missions
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/838/1
In fact, about the only real advantage is, such a mission would be relatively cheap because it doesn't need a dedicated lander. However, if the reason is not flag waving but preventing asteroidal impacts, there are about one gazillion better ways to spend money.
And regarding asteroid mining, it only makes sense if the metals, water, amoniac, etc, mined are to be employed
in space, making it a circular argument, i.e. we should have a space program to mine asteroids to get metals and water for our space program. From an economic point of view there is no way they could compete with Earth's products.
(NEO, I guess someone has a twisted sense of humor... now, I vote to christen the mission 'Nebuchadnezzar' and the modules 'Morpheus' and 'Trinity')
We have shit to take care of on Earth first.
Quote from: Jaron on November 25, 2009, 03:27:03 AM
We have shit to take care of on Earth first.
Like the coming rare metal shortage that will cause our hi-tech economy to collapse. To avoid this we must mine the asteroids. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2009, 03:31:55 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 25, 2009, 03:27:03 AM
We have shit to take care of on Earth first.
Like the coming rare metal shortage that will cause our hi-tech economy to collapse. To avoid this we must mine the asteroids. :contract:
Somehow I guess digging deeper on Earth and/or mining the ocean waters is bound to be quite cheaper...
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 06:12:50 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2009, 03:31:55 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 25, 2009, 03:27:03 AM
We have shit to take care of on Earth first.
Like the coming rare metal shortage that will cause our hi-tech economy to collapse. To avoid this we must mine the asteroids. :contract:
Somehow I guess digging deeper on Earth and/or mining the ocean waters is bound to be quite cheaper...
Correct.
Another goddamn waste of my taxes.
I'd rather have my taxes pay for interesting shit like this than welfare for trailer trash and health care for sickly old people. There's nothing interesting about either of the latter two. :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 25, 2009, 08:23:47 AM
Another goddamn waste of my taxes.
Since they don't tax you very much, it behooves you not to whine too much about what they spend it on. Especially when they're the only thing keeping the black people in your state from rising up, storming your property, murdering you and turning your family into slaves.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2009, 01:36:11 AM
They've already been contracted to build the Orion space capsule. There's not much else that needs to be built for a simple mission like that.
To be fair, they're talking about somewhere around 2024 and have only completed the preliminary design review, so there's still an insane amount of stuff that could get in the way and scrap the mission (such as more POTUSes taking away more funding from NASA, for example).
Timothy, you can't seriously think mining asteroids could ever hope to satisfy demand for raw materials on Earth. Even if we did that, are not asteroids a very limited source? With modern tools even I imagine we could blast one to pieces in a matter of days and ship it all back to Earth. Within a couple years (at best), the entire asteroid belt would be gone.
Quote from: Jaron on November 25, 2009, 09:51:40 AM
Even if we did that, are not asteroids a very limited source?
No. The availible mass of asteroids is enormous.
I see.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 06:12:50 AM
Somehow I guess digging deeper on Earth and/or mining the ocean waters is bound to be quite cheaper...
You never know... :cthulu:
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 08:31:15 AM
I'd rather have my taxes pay for interesting shit like this than welfare for trailer trash and health care for sickly old people. There's nothing interesting about either of the latter two. :(
Let's solve both problems and shoot trailer trash out to the asteroid belt.