Slashdot Mirror
NASA Proposes Manned Asteroid Mission
eldavojohn writes "NASA has proposed a manned asteroid mission to a near earth object. They mention this being viewed as a "gap-filler" to keep the public's attention between a lunar exploration & manned mars mission. The article also cites these goals as in line with the Constellation Program. From the article, 'Furthermore, a human venture to a space rock may well accelerate precursor robotic surveys of asteroids, Schweickart observed. "Early unmanned visits to asteroids ... it's the same pattern as we did with the Moon and we're doing right now with Mars. It's all pretty logical," he told SPACE.com.'"
The experience we get from a mission to asteroids could serve us well in the event that one heads towards earth. I mean, Bruce Willis isn't getting any younger.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
...that when the special edition of Armageddon is released, it'll be marked as "based on a true story?"
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Yeah, I sure hope someone at NASA reads your post, otherwise they'll just blast a rocket full of people up there and hope for the best.
It's so great NASA has the right goal: entertaining the masses.
Fleur de Sel
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the obvious: Using an asteroid landing as a precusror to a mining mission.
If NASA's plans go forward, they're going to need a space infrastructure. Eventually, that will mean space-based manufacturing. For manufacturing, you need raw materials. Those raw materials are expensive to lift from Earth's gravity well. Ergo, the best solution is to mine them from much smaller gravity wells where the cost of transport is comparitively minimal.
The key issue that an mission to an asteroid would need to resolve is the actual composition and concentration of valuable ores. Scientists currently have a lot of educated guesses, but we won't know for sure until a geologist makes a proper survey.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
What's the basis for NASA's planning, here?
Science, or entertaining the public to keep the space budget healthy?
What happens when the public start to wonder why exactly we're sending men to the Moon and Mars and asteriods, just to have them come back again? what exactly did we get for it, except the bill? saying "it's for science" or "it's advancing towards men in space" is getting *old*. We don't have an off-planet base, we're not getting one in the next ten or twenty years.
When you consider that reality, statements like "for science" and "men in space" are ring hollow and people basically go "well, I can't see why we're doing this" and then your public support goes away.
And no bad thing if it did. NASA has been an unmitigated disaster for space travel and exploration. It's almost entirely prevented enterprise and investment into the field and substitued expensive, slow, bureaucratic, political-football State-run snails-pace development.
What have we got to show for the last thirty, fourty years of NASA?
We got men on the moon and then...
What?
One exploration satellite every year or two? Skylab for a bit, then that came down and after thirty years, we FINALLY have the ISS...and it's in low Earth orbit. What's the point, exactly? it's a frickin' expensive way to get into space.
Where's the innovation?
State run companies *DO NOT INNOVATE*.
And by God, if there's a field which needs innovation to get off the ground, it's space travel.
We need solutions to fundamental problems. You don't get that from a committee.
The Moon is too far away and has too deep a gravity well to be really useful as a source of raw materials. An asteroid that we could break up and use to build really big spacecraft, satellites and space stations could kick start the commercial space business into high gear.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
Doing manned missions for PR purposes seems pretty silly.
You must've missed the whole Mercury - Gemini - Apollo era of NASA. Science aspects aside, it was just a cockfight with Russia.
For all of you slashdot readers who have plenty of time on your hands, here is an excellent book on why going to the asteroids should be one of, if not THE, priorities of the manned space program. Although I haven't read it since I was young(er) I still remember it fondly as being one of my great inspirations for space travel. The ease of getting there (it is energetically easier to get to a Near Earth Orbit asteroid than going to the moon!), the resources available there (iron asteroids = lots of metals, icy asteroids/comets = water and volatiles, carbonaceous = building materials) and the potential for discovery/experience in deep space travel are covered in this fascinating book. It made a compelling case, without resort to more speculative ideas such as orbital habitats a la L-5, for why this is our logical next step after the moon.
2 87818
Of course the book was written before Luiz Alvarez proposed that asteroids likely were responsible for mass extinctions. However since that justification for travelling to the asteroids has been discussed endlessly I don't think the omission hurts this book.
If you can find this book (I'm sure it's been out of print for decades) and have the time to read it, please do, It will help restore the feeling of endless possibilities that some of us had about space travel when we were young.
"Islands in Space: The Challenge of the Planetoids" Donald Cox and Dandridge Cole
By the way, if you've read this far, you might want to check out my previous musings on asteroids - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171538&cid=14
Doing manned missions for PR purposes seems pretty silly.
Not doing PR will guarantee that the entire Space Program ends up being nothing but a bunch of expensive lawn ornaments and a theme park in Florida.
It's only because of the public interest in space, and their willingless to spend a shitload of money on it, that there is the opportunity to conduct scientific research up there at all. Private industry isn't going to pay for it; at least not on anything like the scale that we've come to enjoy today.
The primary goal of the space program should be to ensure its own future existence, and that means keeping the public interested. If that means going and sending some guy up to stand on an asteroid for a photo op next to a flag, so be it. It's that sort of thing which will keep the money flowing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
For 40 years, NASA has been sending astronauts into low Earth orbit and calling it "spaceflight". Dinking around in LEO is not space travel.
OK, there was the Apollo program. That begins to count. But the Apollo astronauts were still, at all times, within the Earth's gravity well (the moon is gravitationally bound to the Earth).
But now ...
"That kind of early demonstration mission might last no more than 60 or 90 days," Durda said, "and take the crew no farther than a few lunar distances away from Earth."
Finally. A human being is going to travel in space. Not very far. But it's a start, after decades of pitiful pretence.
Power is anything but cheap, especially in space.
A decent ion engine, such as the one which powered Deep Space 1, required most of the spacecraft's 2.4 kW of power, and that was to get a 500kg craft around.
Ion drive thrust increases with power input. So, in order to move an asteroid about within our lifetimes you're probably going to need several football fields of panels, not to mention either a large number of actual engines, or a new breed of them. (And try getting all that to the asteroid in the first place).
The whole benefit of ion engines is that you require less fuel on your spacecraft due to higher isp. If you can figure out how to use materials on the asteroid for chemical rockets, do it.. if you don't, you're still going to be pushing that mass with an ion engine anyway.
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].