Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Funds Projects For Asteroid-Capture Plan

Posted by Soulskill on from the nasa-in-the-sky-with-diamonds dept.

An anonymous reader writes: NASA has announced funding for 18 different projects aimed at developing an asteroid retrieval mission. "The agency is working on two concepts for the mission. The first concept would fully capture a very small asteroid in free space and the other would retrieve a boulder off of a much larger asteroid. Both concepts would redirect an asteroid mass less than 10 meters in size to orbit the moon. Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft launched on the Space Launch System (SLS) would rendezvous with the captured asteroid mass in lunar orbit and collect samples for return to Earth." Astronomers using the Spitzer Space Telescope have also identified and measured the size of a candidate near-earth asteroid. It measures roughly six meters in diameter, and seems to be held together lightly, possible as a "pile of rubble."

13 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. great... by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we're all going to die of an alien disease.

    Doesn't NASA watch any sci-fi?

  2. Pointless pork for manned spaceflight by Squidlips · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This yet another lame attempt by the all-powerful manned-spaceflight lobby at NASA to supply pork to politically powerful districts such as Houston. The SLS has been called the Rocket to Nowhere and this is an attempt to justify it. All this fooling around with an asteroid could be done for a fraction of the cost with robotic probes. And there is little gain scientifically from this mission. The NASA administrator Bolden, a big-time manned spaceflight guy, has said that there will be no more flagship planetary missions (such as major missions to Mars or Europa), but he is more than willing to fund this asteroid capture stunt. So he wants to sacrifice science for pork. Next year NASA/JPL will have robotic probes reach Pluto/Charon and Ceres, but all the administrator can talk about is this stupid asteroid stunt.

    1. Re:Pointless pork for manned spaceflight by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I don't have a high opinion of the SLS stack or of Congressional pork... One of the problems NASA is faced with is justifying their existence, which in the public eye (i.e. our representatives in Congress) has to include some form of manned spaceflight. This while not having the funding wherewithal (as provided by the same Congressional representatives) to complete a flagship manned planetary or lunar exploration program.

      You can't completely discount manned spaceflight as having absolutely no scientific value; because, there is scientific and technical value in performing a manned mission to an asteroid parked in orbit. There's a quote that goes something like: "A geologist with a rock hammer could learn more in an hour than the robotic probe learned in a year." It's a gross oversimplification but there's some validity to it. By putting people on the site, we can learn quite a bit about the makeup and structure of the sample asteroid that might not be possible with a single pre-designed robotic probe, regardless of how well designed. A human in-situ can make observations and connections based on experience that a robot might not be equipped to make. Said human could then make decisions based on that information, which might be different than decisions made by a remote operator.

      In addition, in the process of designing and flying the vehicle we gain valuable technical information necessary to support various human. We get improved engine designs for vehicles, human or robotic. We get better life-support designs which can be applicable to terrestrial applications as well as space. We get better harsh environment suits. We test the ability of our systems to support "long-endurance" human spaceflight outside the cozy protected orbit ISS resides in.

      Now, if your argument is simply that we shouldn't be putting humans into space at all, as it's too dangerous and/or expensive... I don't know that I have a counter argument that you'll find acceptable. Sure, we can do some things more cheaply using robots and automation. That's true with many human endeavors. McDonalds is working on automating food production in their restaurants, for example. Agriculture can be largely automated. Manufacturing can be automated. Art can be automated. We use human labor because humans are cheap(-er) than using machines or humans introduce artistic / cultural variation, or humans can make observations and connections based on experience that machines cannot (yet) make, or we just have a surplus of humans looking for something to do...

      Sending people to space is expensive because of the energy cost (boost out of the gravity well) and life-support cost. There's no getting around the energy required to boost out of the gravity well; but, we can improve the vehicle and drive costs down. Life support costs we can reduce through infrastructure improvements. If we're ever to have any kind of presence in space, we have to start somewhere; and, that's going to require putting humans into space to obtain experience that cannot be obtained remotely via robotic telepresence. If we're going to reduce the cost, we have to build infrastructure, which is largely going to require some human supervision. We're going to go there eventually; the root technology is available now.

  3. "Held together lightly" by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    How much gravitational attraction does a six-meter pile of rubble even have?

    This sounds more like a bunch of rocks that happen to be falling/floating in the same direction...

    1. Re:"Held together lightly" by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Assuming the "pile of rubble" is pretty much solid iron, a six meter pile masses around 860 tons.

      Which would give the "pile of rubble" about 6 micro-G surface acceleration.

      Which, effectively, means it's a bunch of rocks falling in the same direction at the same place....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. One small step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All this fooling around with an asteroid could be done for a fraction of the cost with robotic probes.

    Yes... and no.

    A significant portion of the proposed project is technology development. This mission puts together and demonstrates a large, high power solar-electric propulsion system, which would be a valuable tool for many missions, including human missions to Mars, or to anywhere. Then it gives us a target for a short-duration human exploration mission, testing the spacecraft concepts that could be accomplished,with a much less complicated mission than a Mars mission, or even a Mars fly-by.

    In terms of step-by-step development and demonstration of technologies for exploration, the program makes a lot of sense.

    You may or may not be in favor of human exploration of Mars, but if this really is a long-term goal of the space program, it is greatly beneficial to have technologies developed and tested first on missions that are somewhat less ambitious than the human Mars mission.

  5. Seems Legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well... It works in Kerbal Space Program.

    1. Re: Seems Legit by CharlesKulcsar · · Score: 3, Funny

      #LifeImitatesKSP

  6. Re:Dog and the Car by timrod · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, they do. I recall seeing an interview with the people at NASA behind this project on CBS. They said that the goal would be to mine captured asteroids for two things: valuable metals (they specified platinum, but there are probably plenty of others) and ice. The ice is particularly important because it can be used to obtain hydrogen and oxygen, which most rockets use for fuel. The NASA guy CBS interviewed had a vision of miniature space stations orbiting asteroids that would serve as the space equivalent of gas stations for long-range spaceflights, but who knows how viable that is.

  7. Re:NASA hates when the robotic missions get the pr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remote control cars on Mars are boring. They do nothing to advance anything except some mild bickering over how common bacteria is in our solar system.
    Asteroid capture does not do much by itself, but would serve as a meaningful proof of concept for the feasibility of extraplanetary construction. Many issues would still be unresolved, but it would show the availability of resources and provide a workspace to start testing ideas of how to extract, process, and manufacture with metals in a negligible gravity non-atmospheric environment.

  8. Re:Dog and the Car by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

    Setting up gas stations in the asteroid belt could work quite well, I would think.

    I begin to see the point of NASA's interest in mining the asteroids. It might be possible that water could be extracted from an asteroid by a solar powered satellite, then shipped by cheap, slow, unmanned rockets to rendezvous points for manned missions. Water has some excellent qualities for use as reactive mass in rocket motors, especially those with nuclear rather than chemical heaters, and a ship that only needed to carry enough reaction mass to get from one rendezvous to the next could open up the solar system to manned exploration very quickly. This would make a manned mission to Mars much easier.

    But first there is a need to determine whether we have technology that can do the extraction, and whether there is enough water in the asteroids to make it worthwhile. Could a solar powered laser aimed at a point on an asteroid create a plume of water vapor that could be captured somehow and condensed into liquid or ice? Interesting concept...

    --
    Will
  9. Better than an Atomic Bomb (in both ways) by ramorim · · Score: 2

    Now we're all going to die of an alien disease.

    Doesn't NASA watch any sci-fi?

    I think in two ways worst than an alien disease, that can be a huge problem if in wrong hands. The FIRST CASE SCENARIO is about miscalculation: capturing near Earth Asteroid is a complex challenge. One thing wrong and you could bombard Earth and cause serious problems (and billions of victims). The SECOND CASE SCENARIO is hypothetical: what about finding a lot of tons of one or more of the 8 most expensive elements in the periodic table: Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh, Os and Ru (or the worst case scenario: only Au and Pt) in the captured asteroids. And what if the company wants to "integrate" its achievement in the Earth economy? :) I know that, if used with wisdom this entrepreneurship can help humanity take a long leap in good, technology and expansion (and establishment) to other orbs in our Solar System, but things can go wrong (or intentionally wrong) and we need some guarantee.

  10. Re:Dog and the Car by itzly · · Score: 2

    First there is a need to identify what exactly these manned missions are going to accomplish. Saving humanity ? No, the earth is a much better bet. Exploration ? No, much better and cheaper with robots. What else ? And without extended manned missions, what's the point of mining the asteroids ?