NASA chooses to get boulder from asteroid rather than an entire redirect

[Reddragon]

If we have the equipment for going to Mars, we're not going to waste time with asteroids.

It would only take a habitation module and sample collecting equipment and other smaller things to test. These are just a few out of the many technologies needed to got o Mars. If we have done a mission like this, it still doesn't mean we're ready for interplanetary flights. It would also be a much shorter mission than a Mars mission. The current ARM concept only needs Orion out of all the proposed Mars exploration equipment.

[Rus-Evo]

We started with a fly-by of the moon before we landed. We could start by doing the same with Mars and Venus. That would be a technology builder.

Also I don't see any country stumping up the cash for an expensive Mars mission that spans several electoral cycles. Mars will only happen when space gets cheaper in time........ there are signs of this slowly happening!

[vger]

If we have the equipment for going to Mars, we're not going to waste time with asteroids.

It takes a LOT less time to visit an asteroid. Even less time to visit the moon with an asteroid orbiting it.

Also, by bringing it back, return trips are much more feasible.

[FishInferno]

We started with a fly-by of the moon before we landed. We could start by doing the same with Mars and Venus. That would be a technology builder.

Also I don't see any country stumping up the cash for an expensive Mars mission that spans several electoral cycles. Mars will only happen when space gets cheaper in time........ there are signs of this slowly happening!

Once SpaceX succeeds in making rockets reusable...

[vger]

We started with a fly-by of the moon before we landed. We could start by doing the same with Mars and Venus.

If we want to test the feasibility of a long-term craft to Mars, couldn't we just leave them orbiting the moon for two years? That way, IF something proves to not work as intended, we can possibly bring them back before "insert failure here" kills them? I don't see us learning about any new crazy unforeseen circumstances simply by doing a slingshot around Mars.

[randomness5555]

So, the fact that WE put the ISS in orbit isn't astonishing? 440 tons of material? Visible in the night sky?

Wait the ISS is visible at night? Why hasn't anyone told me this? To the nearest telescope!

[PlonioFludrasco]

Wait the ISS is visible at night? Why hasn't anyone told me this? To the nearest telescope!

Yes, and you don't need a telescope to see it!

Sometimes, it's also the brightest object in the sky!

Chech heavens-above.com to see when the next pass is for your zone.

[Dkmdlb]

Wait the ISS is visible at night?

Son, that's some naked eye viewing right there! Right after dusk, watch that thing light up the sky like Venus!

[Ralathon]

Just check when it's supposed to pass on Skychart (Don't forget to pick your location). Don't need a telescope or anything, during dusk or dawn it is easily visible to the naked sky. It looks like a rapidly moving star.

[Bill Phil]

Wait the ISS is visible at night? Why hasn't anyone told me this? To the nearest telescope!

Satellites smaller than the ISS are visible at night, under good conditions.

[magnemoe]

If we have the equipment for going to Mars, we're not going to waste time with asteroids.

An asteroid mission can be shorter and you don't need an lander. You would need an habitation module who would be lighter than an Apollo moon lander.

And yes if you do an manned mission to an asteroid you would do it to an larger one.

[Sidereus]

Satellites smaller than the ISS are visible at night, under good conditions.

I tend to see them just about every time I go out to observe. They're usually fairly dim, around 4th magnitude or so, but you can usually catch them moving across the sky fairly easily, though sometimes they're a bit hard to keep track of.

[Rath]

All NASA need for funding is a program that lasts for less than 8yrs so the president can get behind it.

[Bill Phil]

I tend to see them just about every time I go out to observe. They're usually fairly dim, around 4th magnitude or so, but you can usually catch them moving across the sky fairly easily, though sometimes they're a bit hard to keep track of.

Same here. Satellites are everywhere...

[SeaDog]

I don't get why people are so negative, I think this is perfect.

1) This is a perfect demonstration mission of a asteroid redirect mission. This is possibly the simplest way to do it. Send a probe. Grab a heavy rock. Use the force of gravity to redirect much larger rock that would be difficult to move otherwise. Using some kind of direct force might not work because the target is a pile of rubble.

2) It was never an option to move a huge asteroid. The only other real short-term alternative was to find a free asteroid about the size of this rock. Maybe some day humans will be directly moving huge asteroids, but starting small is the way to go. And grabbing a rock on a bigger asteroid is probably simpler than docking a free floating, small asteroid, which is both difficult to find and likely spinning fast.

3) This is relevant experience for asteroid mining. Again, we want to start small and this may very well be the simplest way to do that. In asteroid mining terms, a few meters across is not tiny. If you can find a dirty icecube that size and grab it, you have A LOT of potential fuel.

I think asteroid handling is much more interesting than manned mars missions in the near term.

[vger]

All NASA need for funding is a program that lasts for less than 8yrs so the president can get behind it.

I shudder to think what might happen next year. We currently have a President who is pro-space, and the sub-penny budget is the best they have.

[SpaceCars]

Do asteroids generally have loose rocks? I was wondering how they are planning to pry one loose, esp. if it's some blob of unknown dirt/ice mixture that is partially fused to the rest of the asteroid. I'm also guessing that the lander will have limited ability to maneuver once landed, so it will need to have a good candidate quite close to it's landing site. Looking forward to see the robotics improvements they come up with!

Although I'd love to have seen the original constellation plans become a reality, I still think this is a very cool mission (and at least it gives the Orion capsule a good shakedown ).

[CptRichardson]

I don't get why people are so negative, I think this is perfect.

We're so negative because the politicans WILL kill it in short-sighted stupidity.

[_Augustus_]

We're so negative because the politicans WILL kill it in short-sighted stupidity.

Undoubtedly. There's another thread on stupid things people think about space. It won't just be the politicians. The general public is so dumb that they don't know or care that NASA needs more money.

[Red Iron Crown]

Kindly stay away from the politics, please.

[SpaceCars]

Do asteroids generally have loose rocks?

SpaceNews.com just published an article in which NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot explains: "Asteroids that are several hundred meters across  the current class of destinations that NASA is considering  should have many boulders on their surfaces, based on spacecraft observations of several such objects." However, I still doubt that those are loose boulders, so I hope they pack a thruster with a bit more 'umph' than those ion engines.

[Brotoro]

If you are just going to get a boulder with an automated craft, it would be better to grab several smaller samples while it's there, then bring them directly back to Earth's surface.

"Boulder Grab" is turning asteroid redirect into a silly mission.

[vger]

SpaceNews.com just published an article in which NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot explains: "Asteroids that are several hundred meters across  the current class of destinations that NASA is considering  should have many boulders on their surfaces, based on spacecraft observations of several such objects." However, I still doubt that those are loose boulders, so I hope they pack a thruster with a bit more 'umph' than those ion engines.

I'm also at a loss as to how exactly they plan on picking a boulder.

There won't be enough gravity to "land" a probe on, which means it's going to have to snap photos from an insanely low altitude to find something that might be worth picking. Can they keep the probe's path stable enough that they won't lose track of where the boulder is by the time they've decided photo-X is the one they want to try for? This isn't a Mars rover that can just sit next to a rock for days while NASA debates if it's one worth drilling.

And then what happens if it's not as loose as they thought? Can they detach and then go after another one?

This all seems like it's actually MORE complicated that the original plan. Especially after what happened to Philae.