NASA heads to the asteroids

[Rico]

President Obama has announced his desire to send astronauts to a near by asteroid.  Partially as a first step to Mars and beyond.  Sounds pretty cool to me!

President Barack Obama set a lofty next goal this week for Americans in space: Visiting an asteroid by 2025. But reaching a space rock in a mere 15 years is a daunting mission, and one that might also carry the ultimate safety of the planet on its shoulders.

"It is probably the hardest thing we can do because the asteroid is not coming on a schedule," NASA chief Charles Bolden told reporters late Thursday after Obama announced his space vision.

And when a specific asteroid is eventually selected, the window to launch a spaceship toward it will be much less forgiving than the windows for NASA space shuttles bound for the International Space Station, Bolden said.

"The space station gives us five minutes," he explained. "I'm not sure what an asteroid gives us, but then it doesn't come again for a lifetime."

And there's another compelling reason for touching an asteroid: Saving the planet.

In a panel discussion that followed President Obama's Thursday space vision speech, astrophysicist John Grunsfeld -- a former NASA astronaut who flew on five shuttle missions -- suggested sending humans to purposely move an asteroid, to nudge the space rock to change its trajectory. Such a feat, he said, would show that humanity could deflect a space rock if one threatened to crash into the planet.

"By going to a near-Earth object, an asteroid, and perhaps even modifying its trajectory slightly, we would demonstrate a hallmark in human history," said Grunsfeld, who flew on three shuttle missions to fix the Hubble Space Telescope. "The first time humans showed that we can make better decisions than the dinosaurs made 65 million years ago."

Take the moon, Grunsfeld said. Tycho crater, a huge impact crater on the moon visible from Earth, was created when an asteroid crashed into it 95 million years ago, he said.

"The dinosaurs saw that," Grunsfeld told reporters. "Thirty million years later they're snuffed out when the same thing happens to the Earth." [Asteroids Up Close.]

If humanity doesn't develop a capability to meet space rocks head-on, and win, than it is almost a certainty that an asteroid will eventually threaten life on Earth, he added.

TV's Bill Nye the Science Guy, vice president of the Planetary Society, said the president's asteroid plan carries risk, since it sends astronauts so far from home. But it is a risk worth taking.

"You're saving all of humankind," Nye said. "That's worthy, isn't it?"

What's out there

Scientists estimate there are about 100,000 asteroids and comets near Earth, but only about 20,000 are expected to pose any risk of impact. NASA has found about 7,000 of those objects, 1,000 of them flying in orbits that could potentially threaten the Earth in the future, NASA scientists have said.

Astronomer Donald Yeomans, head of NASA's Near-Earth Object program office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said there are about a dozen near-Earth asteroids that could be within reach of manned spacecraft, but most of those are relatively small. To make a crewed mission worth it, the target space rock would likely have to be at least 300 feet (100 meters) wide.

For comparison, the space rock that exploded in a magnificent fireball over Wisconsin this week was just 3 feet (1 meter) wide, Yeomans said.

"If you could study a few of them up-close, you get a better idea on how best to deflect them," Yeomans told SPACE.com."

And more asteroids are being found all the time. NASA's WISE infrared space telescope is discovering dozens of asteroids every day that were previously unknown. New surveys and spacecraft will add to that space rock bounty over the next 15 years to offer more candidates for a crewed asteroid mission, Yeomans said.

New firsts in space

The bold new mission for NASA unveiled by President Obama Thursday was ultimately aimed at sending humans to Mars in the mid-2030s. The asteroid mission is just the first step.

"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space," Obama said. "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history."

Astronauts have been to the moon and it's time to do something new, Obama said. He pledged to revive the Orion spacecraft, initially canceled along with the rest of NASA's Constellation program building new rockets and spacecraft. Now it will be used as a space station escape ship and, later, play a role in deep space missions, Obama said.

A mission to an asteroid would likely take months. Astronauts would rendezvous with a space rock, not land on it because of its weak gravity, but NASA would not send humans to an asteroid to just look at it, Grunsfeld said.

"If you go up to this, you're going to want to crawl around on it and find out what makes it tick," Grunsfeld said. Tethers or pitons would be required to keep asteroid explorers from floating away, he added.

Astronauts on an asteroid mission would be flying outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere, which shields the planet from harsh space and solar radiation. Even the Apollo astronauts who landed and walked on the moon didn't face such a risk.

"It's every bit as exciting in a different way, we're going to deep space. You turn around and take a picture of the Earth, and it's going to be a dot. You're not even going to see the atmosphere," Nye said. "Going to an asteroid, man, it's tough and risky and dangerous, how cool is that?"

Space radiation and long-term isolation would be among the biggest challenges for deep space missions, said MIT professor Edward Crawley, who participated in the panel discussion with Grunsfeld and served on the White House committee that reviewed NASA's human spaceflight program.

Crawley recommended a tiered approach to training missions, with a series of ever-longer expeditions preparing astronauts to the long treks to asteroids and, eventually, Mars.

Understanding asteroids

In general, asteroids are no strangers to the people of Earth. Astronomers have long-watched the space rocks from the ground while spacecraft have visited -- some even landed on -- asteroids in deep space.

Today, Japan's Hayabusa spacecraft is returning back from a huge asteroid called Itokawa, where it attempted to collect samples to send back to Earth. Hayabusa is due to return in June. Meanwhile, NASA's ion-powered Dawn spacecraft is headed out to the asteroid belt to rendezvous with Vesta and Ceres, the two biggest space rocks in the solar system.

But robots are only as good as their programming, and ultimately still rely on human operators.

"Robots have never discovered things," Grunsfeld said. "People have discovered things, using robots."

There are secrets locked away on asteroids that may hold the key to understanding the formation of the solar system. Asteroids are thought to be the leftover remnants of the solar system's buildings blocks. The organic molecules and compounds on them may offer clues on how life began on Earth, and if it's possible elsewhere in the universe, Nye and Grunsfeld said.

For Yeomans, who has studied asteroids for 40 years, hearing President Obama's commitment to send humans to visit them was uplifting, to say the least.

"It was pretty exciting to hear him say that," Yeomans told SPACE.com. "Of course, Congress still has to pass the budget, so all these things are up in the air a bit."

source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100416/sc_space/nasasnewasteroidmissioncouldsavetheplanet

[Bromptonboy]

This means we are not going to get the Helium-3 on the moon - which would greatly help in working towards working fusion.  I think we need to go back - not as simple as 'been there done that'.

[Feathers]

Interesting and quite cool.

I do tend to agree, however, that simply having been somewhere isn't enough of a reson not to go back again so it will be a shame not to persue another visit to the moon if there's something useful we can do there.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

So......going to the moon is too hard/expensive, but deflecting a small, unlikely for us to reach, asteroid that doesn't need to be deflected is perfectly reasonable. 




I think someone needs to rethink their definition of waste of time & money.

King

[Bromptonboy]

Agreed Brother Feathers.  The moon would also make a much better launching base for missions to Mars and beyond.  A shield to protect us from errant asteroids could also partially - and effectively - be on the moon.  It has been shown that there is water ice on the moon - any resource like that, and other minerals would make a moon partially self sustaining.
Now - we just have to make sure this base isn't used to store nuclear waste....and that waste doesn't somehow explode and knock the moon out of orbit...and...wait...where have I heard that before?!   Dammit Gerry Anderson!  Get out of my brain! 

[cosmonaut]

So......going to the moon is too hard/expensive, but deflecting a small, unlikely for us to reach, asteroid that doesn't need to be deflected is perfectly reasonable. 

I can't believe this. Did you even read the first paragraph of the article before posting?

Did you get what a bigger asteroid will do to this planet? It's THE END. We'll go extinct.

Learning how to deflect an asteroid heading this way is an excellent  investment, because this is a real threat, and you can't do this without practical experience.

Unless you live in a movie world, then just send Bruce Willis, he'll save us.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

So......going to the moon is too hard/expensive, but deflecting a small, unlikely for us to reach, asteroid that doesn't need to be deflected is perfectly reasonable.  

I can't believe this. Did you even read the first paragraph of the article before posting?

Did you get what a bigger asteroid will do to this planet? It's THE END. We'll go extinct.

Learning how to deflect an asteroid heading this way is an excellent  investment, because this is a real threat, and you can't do this without practical experience.

Unless you live in a movie world, then just send Bruce Willis, he'll save us.

Yes I did read it.  However, we've gone (some # of years that I don't know) without getting hit by a planet ender.  I'm not one to worry about the end of times that we can't stop.  (Let's face it, if several planet enders headed in our direction, we would be screwed and have no way to stop it).  I've read the stories, listened to the scientists that talk about the rather significant number of asteroids and other meteors that pass just by our planet.  Some that could do some interesting damage.  So why suddenly worry about it now?  I'm just saying, I'm looking at this practically and I think that utilizing the moon and then eventually Mars, seems bigger bang for the buck than deflecting an asteroid.  Especially since said mission could screw up in so many more ways.  And even more especially since we are "Unable to budget Nasa now".  (etc and other BS).  

I won't deny it'll make us feel better if we could deflect asteroids.  But if we're pinching $$, this seems like a wasted product at our current technological level with space.  I keep hearing, "its not in our budget to run the Space Shuttles".  So why is this?  I'm just a little confused as this idea seems like it would cost more.


King

[cosmonaut]

Sorry for accusing you of not reading the article, I was wrong and it's probably a matter of opinion.
(And distrusting politicians is always good advice, and not having money is usually an excuse and a question of priorities.)

This will be a wild mix of vague facts, wikipedia knowledge and some guesswork, but that's my take on the matter:

Yes, you're right about the odds. Science still is vague on that, but the number I get from wikipedia is 65 mio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

# Asteroid impacts producing craters over 100 km wide: one, associated with one mass extinction.
# Asteroid impacts producing craters less than 100 km wide: over 50, the great majority not associated with significant extinctions.

I admit, that's very low, and we might just be lucky. But what if not? Even a small asteroid might kill billions, directly or indirectly. It's difficult to spot them, and when we do there might not be much time to do something about it.
I think we should worry about it now because we finally did realize the danger, have the ability to detect that danger with some warning time and have the technology to do something about it.

And it will come way cheaper than a settlement on the moon, or even mars. We have even trouble keeping a small can with solar wings in orbit, that was very expensive and took decades to build. Worth 35 to 160 billion dollars, but more a prestige object than anything else.

I don't dare to even think about what a moon city would cost. You have to bring everything up there, well with the exception of energy from the sun and some resources. To utilize the resources there you need mining and factories. How many shuttles for mining tools, how many to build a factory, how many for just a small habitat?
We need some major progress in technology to make a truly independent moon city, just look at your computer and think how many components from all over the world are assembled there and how specialized the factories have to e to produce the necessary quality. The moment we can't afford for whatever reasons to send replacement parts to the moon that habitats time is running out.

This is a time for exploration, but it's Hubble, Spirit and Co. that deliver all the scientific knowledge. Not that glorious, but there's not much to gain from sending humans in space, there is no relation between costs and benefits. As exciting as the thought might be, this is not the time to send humans out there. This is the time to collect information and develop technologies, and this can be done very efficiently with unmanned crafts.
(Self sustaining habitats are a great thing, but there aren't any, not even on Earth.)

If the scenario is "survive possible asteroid impact", the shorter and cheaper route is "learn to deflect asteroid", not "learn to build independent habitat somewhere in space". (Maybe researching asteroids helps that goal, too?)
And if the scenario is "go not extinct", by the time we have the knowledge for moon cities we should also be able to handle most catastrophes on this planet, and after all there is no place like home. 

Space exploration is a dream, and we want to go out there, see it, touch it, feel it with our own hands and eyes. Bigger, better, higher, further, that's progress, and sending someone there is something we can relate to, it's a symbol. It's a flag on Mars. But there is not much beyond that, we would do it because we can.
And then the astronauts collect some rocks and fly back to earth, because there's no reason to stay out there.

[X]

So......going to the moon is too hard/expensive, but deflecting a small, unlikely for us to reach, asteroid that doesn't need to be deflected is perfectly reasonable. 

I can't believe this. Did you even read the first paragraph of the article before posting?

Did you get what a bigger asteroid will do to this planet? It's THE END. We'll go extinct.

Learning how to deflect an asteroid heading this way is an excellent  investment, because this is a real threat, and you can't do this without practical experience.

Unless you live in a movie world, then just send Bruce Willis, he'll save us.

Yes I did read it.  However, we've gone (some # of years that I don't know) without getting hit by a planet ender.  I'm not one to worry about the end of times that we can't stop.  (Let's face it, if several planet enders headed in our direction, we would be screwed and have no way to stop it).  I've read the stories, listened to the scientists that talk about the rather significant number of asteroids and other meteors that pass just by our planet.  Some that could do some interesting damage.  So why suddenly worry about it now?  I'm just saying, I'm looking at this practically and I think that utilizing the moon and then eventually Mars, seems bigger bang for the buck than deflecting an asteroid.  Especially since said mission could screw up in so many more ways.  And even more especially since we are "Unable to budget Nasa now".  (etc and other BS). 

I won't deny it'll make us feel better if we could deflect asteroids.  But if we're pinching $$, this seems like a wasted product at our current technological level with space.  I keep hearing, "its not in our budget to run the Space Shuttles".  So why is this?  I'm just a little confused as this idea seems like it would cost more.


King

I really think you are missing the point. Going to the moon accomplishes very little. It was a PR stunt in the past and little was done there.

Developing technology to stop a planet killer actually has a use.

Sure, we haven't been hit in a while, but that doesn't mean that it's not going to happen.

If it happens sooner rather than later, common sense dictates we at least attempt to have the right tools for the job.

[Bryancd]

I think the idea of visiting the asteroids is a usefull scientific endeavor. Form a geological standpoint, we can learn a lot about the early solar system as well as possibly discover a treasure trove of resources which are very scarce on Earth. The idea of furthering our understanding of their composition as a potential means of planetary defense sounds reasonable, but I think that's a bit more for public consumption and acceptance of the program. Everyone has seen the "Killer Asteroid" movie and this helps make the program an easy sell. I think the reality of being able to do this is VERY different. Visiting an asteroid is one thing, knowing how to alter it's course is a whole different kettle of fish very dependant upon the material which a particular asteroid is made up of. We won't know what to do until we see it, touch it, taste it, and then hope it's not too late to alter it's course.

I think those saying the Moon isn't worth revisiting and potentially establishing a permanent presence are being short sighted. The single most difficult thing about traveling into space is the first couple of hundred miles. Those are the bitch of the bunch. The cost and energy required to lift something off the surface of the planet into orbit are MASSIVE. It's also very dangerous as so much propellant and power is involved. If you can move all of that up 250,000 miles away and leave from the Moon, it becomes a vastly easier proposition allowing for trips to mars, asteroids, even the moon's of Jupiter a much more realistic venture. This asteroid plan, although worthy, is the administrations effort to kick this down the road for the time being, I fear. We're not going anywhere. :(

[X]

I think the idea of visiting the asteroids is a usefull scientific endeavor. Form a geological standpoint, we can learn a lot about the early solar system as well as possibly discover a treasure trove of resources which are very scarce on Earth. The idea of furthering our understanding of their composition as a potential means of planetary defense sounds reasonable, but I think that's a bit more for public consumption and acceptance of the program. Everyone has seen the "Killer Asteroid" movie and this helps make the program an easy sell. I think the reality of being able to do this is VERY different. Visiting an asteroid is one thing, knowing how to alter it's course is a whole different kettle of fish very dependant upon the material which a particular asteroid is made up of. We won't know what to do until we see it, touch it, taste it, and then hope it's not too late to alter it's course.

I think those saying the Moon isn't worth revisiting and potentially establishing a permanent presence are being short sighted. The single most difficult thing about traveling into space is the first couple of hundred miles. Those are the bitch of the bunch. The cost and energy required to lift something off the surface of the planet into orbit are MASSIVE. It's also very dangerous as so much propellant and power is involved. If you can move all of that up 250,000 miles away and leave from the Moon, it becomes a vastly easier proposition allowing for trips to mars, asteroids, even the moon's of Jupiter a much more realistic venture. This asteroid plan, although worthy, is the administrations effort to kick this down the road for the time being, I fear. We're not going anywhere. :(

Bryan, I like your thinking, but logic kills me on it.

I 100% agree that it would be more efficient to launch things from the moon, but only under certain circumstances.

1) As it stands, with no fuel producing sites or ship construction sites on the moon, it would currently cost more to launch from the moon than earth. Every thing has to get to the moon, which requires fuel. It also has to stop on the moon costing more fuel. And then finally the relaunching consuming more fuel.

2) Until manufacturing and fueling on the moon is operational there will not be any savings on any launches.

As a concept, the idea works, but the reality is that everything we need to launch ships from the moon will have to be transported by the very same ships that we would have otherwise been using for a direct route. In the end there would be no savings and more spending because of the energy needed to construct a gas station that requires the Earth to still provide the fuel.

Factor in the loss of using the moon's mass in any slingshot maneuvers and the inefficiencies start to add up.

[Bryancd]

Your leaving out the single most important aspect of lifting stuff into orbit. If you are just lifting "stuff" you can do so using some pretty basic, powerful rockets. If you also are lifting "astronauts" you have a totally different set of considerations. Loosing "stuff" isn't too big a deal. Loosing "people" is. That's why the scrubbed Aries Program for getting back to and establishing a base on the Moon had two components. A lifting vehicle that was a monster booster, and a much smaller, safer, maned rocket for getting the crew there. The operational efficiencies of that model are MUCH better than combining crew and equiptment in one vehicle. Yes, it would require an initial investment to establish capabilities for manned exploration above the Earth, but once you do, the cost and RISKS drop dramatically.

JPL and Neil Armstrong have endorsed the concept of making the investment of using the Moon as a staging are for manned exploration, so I feel good joining their "logic". :)

[X]

Your leaving out the single most important aspect of lifting stuff into orbit. If you are just lifting "stuff" you can do so using some pretty basic, powerful rockets. If you also are lifting "astronauts" you have a totally different set of considerations. Loosing "stuff" isn't too big a deal. Loosing "people" is. That's why the scrubbed Aries Program for getting back to and establishing a base on the Moon had two components. A lifting vehicle that was a monster booster, and a much smaller, safer, maned rocket for getting the crew there. The operational efficiencies of that model are MUCH better than combining crew and equiptment in one vehicle. Yes, it would require an initial investment to establish capabilities for manned exploration above the Earth, but once you do, the cost and RISKS drop dramatically.

JPL and Neil Armstrong have endorsed the concept of making the investment of using the Moon as a staging are for manned exploration, so I feel good joining their "logic". :)

Actually I didn't forget, but there is a formula that dictated how much fuel is needed per kilo of lifted weight. This number doesn't change because of the physic behind it.

Also, NASA has already decided to go back to the two rocket system of a cargo lifter and a crew lifter, so a moon base isn't something that is factored into that. The scrubbing of the shuttle program was already a done deal.

Strictly speaking on a physics level and not a vanity level, the creation of a moon base will not create any net gains in a space program unless a) fuel can be mined on the moon or b) ships in space aren't going to be returning to earth.

In the case of B, there would be some slight saving in not having to return to earth to refuel, but would that savings be justified in the costs it would take to create such a base and fuel containment areas.

I won't even get into the detailed human costs of having a lunar base because it's probably the same as a mars mission. In both cases, prolonged stay would cause serious and irreversible bone density loss. As this process can start as soon as 22 days in low gravity, for the health of a crew, constant crew rotations or better technology would be needed for prolonged stays. Constant crew rotations would require constant expenditures of fuel.

Technology would be the best bet in that.

The only real use for a lunar base beyond basic scientific research (which can be done at the ISS) would be as a docking station for a intrasystem fleet of spacecraft with plasma ion engines. If PI drives are the backbone of the space fleet, then it is feasible to think that thy might be able to mine or store greater amounts of fuel on the moon.

Unfortunately with that idea, we are still limited to the high power requirements needed for a PI drive.

Nuclear generators might solve that gap, but would the world be ready to transport tons of radioactive materials together on one transport for the sake of reducing fuel consumption?