Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Hab Module For Asteroid Redirect Mission Could Support a Lunar Return
MarkWhittington writes Space News reported on Wednesday that NASA is mulling a hab module as part of the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The inclusion of the hab module would extend the mission from 28 days to as long as 60 days. The module would provide enough consumables such as food, water, and oxygen and other support to sustain the crew of astronauts for weeks while examining a small asteroid in orbit around the moon. The module might also support a return to the lunar surface, given certain modifications.
Considering that it's likely that in a few decades humanity will transition to machine bodies (or at least much more resilient organic bodies), I'd be fine with limiting space exploration for the time being to probes and rovers where one doesn't have to waste so much payload and resources on water, food and oxygen.
Yes, I support space exploration. However, I think the priority for now, our generation's Apollo moment, should be earthbound research into AI and neuroscience. Let's expand through the solar system after that has let us overcome our present need for an ecosystem to go along with us.
I guess they want to avoid any "28 days later" scenarios.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I know it's bad form at /. to RTFA, but it would sure make some comments less painful to read.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's still some space for science up there. The properly analyzed samples come from only a small number of sites, and all from the surface - there's almost nothing known about what lies beneath. A lot could be learned by proper surveying. Drill for deeper samples, lay down seismic instruments. All of no practical benefit - the moon is unlikely to have any minerals rich enough in expensive elements to justify mining - but there is still science to be done. It'd also make a good observatory - it's not practical to haul the giant mirror of an optical telescope up there, but you could set up giant radio telescope arrays free from the interference and atmospheric absorption that limits observable frequency ranges on earth. A lunar science base would be very expensive, but it would still be of scientific use. It just wouldn't bring any immediate practical technologies - surveys of worthless dust and improved imaging of distant objects may be good for astronomers to refine their theories, but that's all.
Though with the way robotics is advancing, in another decade or two we wouldn't need humans to handle a mobile drill rig.
I would not be so certain strong EMPs are NOT going to hurt a majority of electronics. We have not seen the worst nature (on earth and in space) has to offer. As a side note ever seen the movie "the day the earth stood still?"
" thousands of tourists go to Antarctica. money to burn."
Thousands of tourists used to get sightseeing flights to Antarctica back in the late 70's
Air New Zealand stopped that when one of the DC10s hit Mt Erebus
We don't need such a module, because we don't need, or even want humans to go back to the Moon.
Wait - who is this "we" you keep referring to? Okay, he was speaking of Mars, but still...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The real goal of the habitat is the Martian moon, Phobos, which is reachable for nearly the same expenditure of energy as the high retrograde lunar orbit planned for ARM. It would take a good deal longer, though, thus the need for a habitat.
If you think of ARM as a training wheels dry run for Phobos, you would not be far off.
as Orion has no toilet compartment, no sleeping bunks for off shift use, no air lock, no room for treadmill (kinds of stuff Shuttle orbiter mid deck had).
mfwright@batnet.com
Um, how many humans can survive on the moon, currently? Maybe putting the Hab on the moon would show something significant, like ones next breath?
I think "we" are the types of humans that said the same thing when a family member decided to look and see what was on the other side of the valley so many years ago.
Are we going to capture the rock?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If we don't need humans for that (enormously complex) undertaking we don't need to send humans to the moon for the sake of taking core samples.
swb's comment is insightful too. The best reason to go into space is because we are happy on Earth and want to grow that happiness further.
That said, it is not unreasonable to want a distributed population for reasons of backup and resiliency, as well as reasons for new perspectives/exploration/innovation. Humans run simulations to learn things, and space habitats may develop a variety of approaches to things that are new and useful.
Also, as human technological power grows, the Earth becomes ever smaller and the stakes for a global mistake (e.g. bioweapon, nuclear war) get every higher -- even as we should do what we can to reduce and contain those risks as appropriate.
See also:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/K...
"A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."
NASA should have been doing these sort of hab missions decades ago IMHO. Better late than never!
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I mean, at minimum, we should use the Soyuz approach: a "space-habitation" module and an "Earth return" module. Minimize the size of the Earth return module, and you get more room for what is needed only in space. But launching a second, larger space habitation module would be just as good. Hell, use a Dragon v2 and a Bigelow BEAM. Both can launch on a single Falcon 9 rocket. (Although that wouldn't accommodate beyond-Earth-orbit fuel.)
Make it profitable, and they will go. How do you think North America got populated* ?
*Well, there is making it a prison planet, and sending everyone who gets a felony. I am sure some would love doing that, as long as they didn't have to go.
The properly analyzed samples come from only a small number of sites, and all from the surface - there's almost nothing known about what lies beneath.
Uh...there were core samples taken to about 3 meters (a little less than 10 feet) below the surface on Apollos 15, 16, and 17 using a drill, and all of the Apollo missions took samples down to about 70 centimeters (27 inches).
If only certain key congress members would stop dictating NASA design and build a big ass rocket that will be too expensive to use and really not needed, the resources NASA already has could go into Nautilus-X.
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular support. It doesn't. Nobody (except maybe the richest of the rich) can afford to fund their own expedition. These means that other potential astronauts need to rely on a support base to fund them. But where is this support base? Let's say you want to send 5 people. Round it off to 5 Billion. This means your mission needs to find 5 million people prepared to donate $1000 to send someone else to the moon.
15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)
Also relevant, Artemis's 2 main space craft (the lander and the trans-Lunar transport) were designed around the Space Hab module, which was used to provide extended lab/work space for the space shuttle.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs were "Buck Rogers"* (or "Captain Kirk" or whomever your favorite space hero is).
We don't have any insert-your-favorite-space-hero, now. At least not one who can broadly inspire the support those 3 programs had. And I don't foresee one any time soon.
There is no vision.
It's not about humans vs robots. Yes, you can do a lot of real science for less money using robots. But it's not just about science. It's also about humans being humans. Of course, just putting humans out there isn't enough.
There is no vision.
Instead, we have pork-politics.
---
*Supposedly, the Mercury astronauts said "No Buck Rogers, no bucks. And we're buck Rogers".
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular support. It doesn't. Nobody (except maybe the richest of the rich) can afford to fund their own expedition. These means that other potential astronauts need to rely on a support base to fund them. But where is this support base? Let's say you want to send 5 people. Round it off to 5 Billion. This means your mission needs to find 5 million people prepared to donate $1000 to send someone else to the moon.
15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)
This is exactly what I was referring to. I'd never heard of the Artemis Project until you mentioned it. I suspect that if go out onto the street and asked 10 people about the artemis project, none of them will have heard of it either. The project failed. You can't sell advertising and media rights if no-one has heard of your project or is interested in it. The people behind that project imagined that their enthusiasm for it was infectious. They imagined that they could build a habitat on the moon, and people would simply turn up. But they were wrong. Ultimately because they misunderstood the level of public support and enthusiasm for such a venture.
Lets consider Show Offs, that would fun to watch.