Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's ARM Will Take a Boulder From an Asteroid and Put It In Lunar Orbit

Posted by samzenpus on from the throwing-rocks dept.

coondoggie writes NASA officials today said they have picked the specific asteroid mission and offered new details for that mission which could launch in the 2020 timeframe. Specifically, NASA's associate administrator Robert Lightfoot said the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) will rendezvous with the target asteroid, land a robotic spacecraft on the surface, grab a 4 meter or so sized boulder and begin a six-year journey to redirect the boulder into orbit around the moon for exploration by astronauts.

63 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Just what the Moon always wanted by databeam · · Score: 2

    So the Moon will have its own moon now?

    --
    "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." -- Isaac Asimo
    1. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Twist:
      The moon already has a moon. It's called "Earth."

    2. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, they rotate around each other, contrarily to popular belief where the Moon rotates around the Earth.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      There is no strict definition, but the most commonly used one is: A moon is never the larger mass and the larger mass has to be a planet.

    4. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In order to account for binary systems, I generally look at the central axis of rotation - if it's inside one of the bodies, that body is the 'primary' - IE a planet, sun, whatever. If it's outside, then it's a double system.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by SQL+Error · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They rotate around a common center of gravity. But that center of gravity is inside the Earth. Or to put it another way, no.

    6. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      No, they rotate around a barycentre which is 1710km under the Earth's surface.

    7. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Congratulation!

      Here is a link with a nice animated gif that shows it all:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Oh and yes, I already knew the center of mass was inside the Earth and both planets rotate around that center of mass which is pretty close to rotating around each other in popular language.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    8. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      In order to account for binary systems, I like to generalize and say it's all the same although the formula to compute the actual center of mass when inside the larger body differs than when it is outside. This is because when inside the larger body, some part of the larger body modify the gravitational attraction from the smaller body.

      But in the end, the important point to be aware of is the center of mass.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      As a side note. although there is few references to such cases, it is the same for 3,4,5... body systems. All you have to understand is the center of mass.

      Translated to slashdot developer like language: Understand the basic principles and avoid re-inventing the wheel as much as possible.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    9. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      But in the end, the important point to be aware of is the center of mass.

      Which is also the center of rotation. I pulled a slightly wrong term up for what I wanted to say.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Cool brother. Anyway, wtf is an axis of rotation?

      Just kidding ;-)

      Take care,

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    11. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Earth tugs on the Sun as well. Does the Sun rotate around Earth?

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    12. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Indeed it does.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    13. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by FrostedWheat · · Score: 2

      That would make the Sun and Jupiter a binary system.

    14. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      It's a fricking center of mass.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    15. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Nope it wouldn't.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    16. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Ok I will give you an hint:

      It would make the solar system a {0} body system with a very hard center of mass to compute.
      The {0} parameter would depend on which planets we exclude from our Earthly definition I guess, think about Pluto ;-)

      In the end yes, the whole thing rotates around the center of mass which we haven't clearly identified yet...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    17. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      In order to account for binary systems, I generally look at the central axis of rotation - if it's inside one of the bodies, that body is the 'primary' - IE a planet, sun, whatever. If it's outside, then it's a double system.

      So if the moon were located about 20% further from Earth, then you would consider the Earth-Moon system a binary system?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    18. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I don't know shit about super cluster but I am sure I could get along quickly applying basic principles.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    19. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that was what I was trying to say; same difference.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    20. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Earth tugs on the Sun as well. Does the Sun rotate around Earth?

      All depends on your frame of reference, yo.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    21. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah? And how do you account for superclusters?

      What do you mean? An African or European supercluster?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Find the centerpoint of the rotation. Plop a line through it perpendicular to the motion. The line is your axis.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    23. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Going by the AC's picture, I guess I'd have to amend my statement to 'center of mass spends at least some time in one of the orbital bodies', if Jupiter and Saturn are enough to yank it outside on occasion.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    24. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      We're darn close to it anyways. We have a freaky huge moon for the size of our planet, far out of proportion from the rest of the planets.

      I've actually theorized that it might be factor in life forming.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    25. Re: Just what the Moon always wanted by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is pretty much accepted from what I understand that the Moon had several influences on the rise and development of life on this planet, from (among others) stabilizing our spin, to moderating the seasons, deflection of large asteroids, and even to the development of optic cones in addition to rods (or rods in addition to cones, I forget which), etc.

      I think that it was Asimov that pointed out that our Moon follows a fully concave path around the Sun, i.e. never travels backwards, and in his opinion that defined us (for him) as a dual-planet system.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  2. All fun and games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Throwing rocks is all fun and games until someone breaks a window on the ISS.

  3. In a departure from tradition... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    American aerospace contractors are displeased to note that NASA plans to have the Asteroid Redirect Vehicle fabbed on a 20nm process by TSMC, rather than more traditional launch partners...

    1. Re:In a departure from tradition... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      American aerospace contractors are displeased to note that NASA plans to have the Asteroid Redirect Vehicle fabbed on a 20nm process by TSMC, rather than more traditional launch partners...

      NASA is displeased to find that TSMC's 20nm process is actually a planar 28nm process with the name changed. Elon Musk is upset that NASA didn't select his far superior 14nm trigate process that is superior in every metric.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:In a departure from tradition... by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Somehow I misread that as PTMC, which struck me as being the very last people we'd want fabbing space vehicles.

    3. Re:In a departure from tradition... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I read it as "NASA's ARM will take a Boulder from Android and Put It In Linux"

      perhaps I should drink more coffee and wear my glasses.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:In a departure from tradition... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Not that I know of, just my feeble attempt at a joke. It seems like absolutely every other outfit that doesn't own a fab and wants to build an ARM hires TMSC to do it; so when I read about an Asteroid Redirect Mission, I was immediately struck by the image of NASA licensing some IP blocks and having TSMC slap out some wafers.

  4. what if NASA gets the wrong 4 meter-or-so boulder? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    you know, maybe the one the asteroid really, really likes.

  5. Astronauts are obsolete technology by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Why not just examine the asteroid where it is? Possibly bringing samples back to earth, if really necessary.

    How does having an astronaut in a clumsy suite help?

    1. Re:Astronauts are obsolete technology by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rendezvousing with asteroids is actually really tricky, especially if you want to get the same one twice. Hell with astronauts--putting this boulder somewhere that we can reach it over and over again, even just with probes, is a real big win. Especially considering how the last asteroid mission went... I don't think astronauts are the important part of the equation so much as the lunar orbit part is.

      Even then I'm wondering how easy it is to get this thing back to Earth surface intact. If it was tiny, then sure, stuff it in aerogel, but this thing is going to be somewhere on the order of 800,000 kilograms (napkin estimate)...that's almost half the mass that the Space Shuttle was when full of fuel, and one hell of a lot more than its payload-to-landing! Anything you wrap it in is going to wreck fine features of the surface when you decelerate--for scientific purposes, it's a lot more fragile than astronauts. You need to pickaxe parts off of it gently for transport and study. I'm not sure how good our teleoperated waldos are in practice, so...astronauts.

    2. Re:Astronauts are obsolete technology by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Even then I'm wondering how easy it is to get this thing back to Earth surface intact.

      I dunno, if KSP taught me anything, all we need to do is strap 50 MK16 parachutes to it, and everything should be fine. ;)

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  6. Let's not go to an asteroid, 'tis a silly place. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    In other news, Ni!SA (formerly NASA) has cancelled their plans for a mission to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring, in favor of a mission to acquire a shrubbery and return it for study.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  7. Oh noes ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that orbitals are dependent on other orbitals.

    I know damned well, given the difficulty of solving the three body problem, that NASA doesn't know what effect relocating an asteroid will have on other objects.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Oh noes ... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... a 4 meter wide body should be very close to negligible with regard to that.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:Oh noes ... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ... given the difficulty of solving the three body problem..

      I saw a video about that once. Looked sorta like fun. I think the main thing is everone has to cooperate and get in sync.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Oh noes ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      From your post:

      ... should be ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:Oh noes ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      In sync went out with the Backstreet Boys.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Oh noes ... by Jaywalk · · Score: 1

      That's okay. Just in case, Bruce Willis will be standing by.

      --
      ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    6. Re:Oh noes ... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  8. Exploration? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

    Do you explore a 4 meter boulder? Or do you just examine it?

    1. Re:Exploration? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Gotta be a typo. Don't they mean 400 meters or 4KMs? That size would be exploration worthy as a test of various aspects of the coming asteroid belt mining operations needed when we use up all the exotic metals here at home.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Exploration? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2

      1st rule of Space Brigade: don't talk about Space Brigade.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Exploration? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Do you explore a 4 meter boulder? Or do you just examine it?

      If you sent astro-mites, I'm sure that would count as exploration.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. pointless by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    What astronauts exactly? And why put something in the path of possible future moon missions (made by perhaps smarter countries than the USA)

    1. Re:pointless by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What astronauts exactly? And why put something in the path of possible future moon missions (made by perhaps smarter countries than the USA)

      Seriously? You figure that asteroid is going to make a Dyson sphere around the moon or something?

      If we are to find out what is in Asteroids, just imagine how much moore convenient it will be than having to go far out to analyze them.

      Anything else you hate about existence?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:pointless by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      yeah, tools like you who are smarter than the rocket scientists. And, your notion of sending a 200 lb astronaut with another 20,000 lbs of support vehicle being "easier" than sending a 2000 lb satellite is just baffling.

      Let's chat about orbital mechanics and the space environment.

      Oh yeah, 1) we don't have to bring the satellite back

      So did we get some sort of Star Trek Transporter technology? Or we're just going to tell the samples to get on over to earth? I suspect that if you did d want the asteroid to be looked at (a big assumption - I suspect you don't) you have a grossly inflated expectations of the capabilities of satellite based chemical analysis. Ever been in a real chem lab?

      you're making a stupid, stupid assumption that the "boulder" will actually be monolithic and not shed pieces under the tidal forces. You're likely to be wrong.

      Wow. Two stupids. Okay, first thing is that we've got this awesome new technology called bags Usually they have a hole at one end, and they are kind of closed up at the other. So if we wanted to snare and send back a crumbly Carbonaceous asteroid, we'd probably put a bag around it. Some bags are pretty darn big too. Still, we don't have to bring back Vesta, you know.

      Second thing, we might pick and choose among the asteroids. The nickle-iron ones are of mining interest, and are darned solid. The carbonaceous ones are of great interest to scientists, and the silicate ones are probably of least interest - but who knows?

      In the end, this is an exercise in so many different things, snagging, transporting, probably extraction methods, research and development, its a real winner.

      And your non-problem problems just show how some have to grasp at straws to find reasons to oppose it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:pointless by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      They're talking about a Distant Retrograde Orbit (which are stable over a century) in the earth-moon plane at 47,000 miles above moon.

    4. Re:pointless by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Something in the earth-moon plane and moreover in distant retrograde orbit (DRO - for stability on timescale of century) is "in the way" and even going the wrong way for conveniently getting to it. I know more about orbital mechanics than you could ever hope to as was my thesis, bring it on.

    5. Re:pointless by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      They're talking about a Distant Retrograde Orbit (which are stable over a century) in the earth-moon plane at 47,000 miles above moon.

      Oy - I was hoping it was clear I was being really sarcastic, but I did not know specifics about the orbit they were thinking of, so thanks for that bit of info.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  10. Cool but what use are the humans? by JPyObjC+Dude · · Score: 1

    Honestly, its a wicked idea however the use of Humans to execute the material retrieval for analysis does make much sense unless they are doing active and repetitive analysis at the captured space boulder.

    Its seems more intuitive to just fly some robots up to do the capture and send back the samples back to Earth as needed?

    1. Re:Cool but what use are the humans? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Honestly, its a wicked idea however the use of Humans to execute the material retrieval for analysis does make much sense unless they are doing active and repetitive analysis at the captured space boulder.

      Its seems more intuitive to just fly some robots up to do the capture and send back the samples back to Earth as needed?

      I have a feeling the human participation in this mission is just as much for the sake of science/engineering. It's been a long time since we had humans any further out than the ISS.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  11. Re:Let's not go to an asteroid, 'tis a silly place by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    I'll bite: Roger the Shrubber
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  12. I wish this were a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...but it's not.

    We dreamed of going to the moon, then Mars. Then NASA decided they'd harness an asteroid to "develop technologies". Now we're going to move a rock piece from an asteroid to a moon orbit, and then study it! How far we have fallen, what a joke.

  13. I shall call himmmm. by zeroeth · · Score: 1

    Mini-moon. *pinky*

  14. Don't use a nuke to move the asteroid by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    ...because you can lose your ARM that way.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Don't use a nuke to move the asteroid by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

  15. Re:Why bother? by careysub · · Score: 1

    Because it will be immensely valuable in the long run to be able to move asteroids around.

    And it makes sense to start with something small to gain experience at doing it.

    And although a 4 m astro-boulder is "small" as asteroids go, it weighs on the order of 100 tonnes - making it roughly the same mass as the largest single payload ever orbited from Earth (more precisely probably about half the mass of that largest payload on a Saturn V). Seems like a good place to start.

    Also this is boulder, being a CI carbonaceous chondrite is a very interesting object for scientific study. We have pieces of these that have fallen to Earth, but they are always contaminated. Obtaining pristine samples, and being able to obtain cores, will be also be immensely valuable scientifically.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  16. Re: what if NASA gets the wrong 4 meter-or-so boul by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    I think there's already a 2030 mission in the works to send the boulder back with flowers, chocolates, and an apology letter inscribed on a golden disc that reveals a YouTube compilation of Carl Sagan quotes if placed in a laserdisc player. (The instructions on the sleeve for constructing such a device simply say "This product has been discontinued" in a mixture of pulsar coordinates and atomic oscillations.)

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!