NASA To Land A Man On An Asteriod By 2025

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

Mission to Mars Box office revenue $110,983,407

Armageddon Box office revenue $553,709,788

A decision based on real world facts.

[Godot]

... Late last year, the House held the first hearing on the possibility of alien life...

So, were the NASA scientists successful in convincing the congressmen that

1. Extraterrestrial aliens pose no threat for terrorism

and

2. alien planets are too far away to invade them for oil and other resources

?

[Top8]

Mission to Mars Box office revenue $110,983,407

Armageddon Box office revenue $553,709,788

A decision based on real world facts.

Myabe thats what NASA needs - a good soundtrack! That Aerosmith song was on the charts for a long time.

Or maybe they need Bruce Willis ... hard to say.

[astropapi1]

Or maybe they need Bruce Willis ... hard to say.

Por qué no los dos?

[Mitchz95]

The landing itself probably won't yield any real revolutionary date, but developing the hardware to drag an asteroid - even a small one - into Earth orbit would be a hugely impressive feat. "We do these things because they are hard" and all that.

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

The landing itself probably won't yield any real revolutionary date, but developing the hardware to drag an asteroid - even a small one - into Earth orbit would be a hugely impressive feat. "We do these things because they are hard" and all that.

I agree. Deviating even a small asteroid as a proof of concept is cool, makes sense.

Doesn't need astronauts and the SLS to then fly up to the thing and take selfies.

[NovaSilisko]

I agree. Deviating even a small asteroid as a proof of concept is cool, makes sense.

Doesn't need astronauts and the SLS to then fly up to the thing and take selfies.

That's the interesting thing about this mission - the human presence is so unnecessary. It's not like mars or the moon where you have a large open landscape to explore and many many potential things you might see, that a robot would miss. Everything they've shown has the bag being opened up in a small patch, rocks plucked off, and photos being taken... a robotic mission could do that very easily IMO.

Even if humans come back to it multiple times, there's still not much in this situation that I can see humans doing that robots couldn't do, which is actually somewhat surprising given how much more efficiently humans tend to do field science.

Edited January 30, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[sgt_flyer]

Well, asteroids could be providing something of interest (although for sure, a robotic reentry capable mission would be better to bring back samples)

If the good minerals can be found in asteroids, then we could use those minerals through 3d printing to build rocket engines, fuel tanks etc - it might even be possible to create fuel from them - so the only thing you would need to send up to space for completing your spacecraft would be the electronics for unmanned probes. (Which would be waaay lighter than everything else )

[metaphor]

The original plan for that mission was just to send astronauts to lunar orbit and then back to Earth as the first crewed test of the SLS/Orion.

With the change to an asteroid mission, the manned part of the mission is basically the same, astronauts launch on the SLS, go to (high) lunar orbit, stay there a bit then return to Earth. It's still basically a crewed test of the SLS/Orion. The difference is there will now be an asteroid for the astronauts to look at when they get into lunar orbit.

So pretty much the entire cost of this asteroid retrieval mission (over what was planned before) is the unmanned electric tug that will catch the asteroid and bring it back to the Earth-Moon system. This tug is basically like a Curiosity-size unmanned mission in terms of budget, and way cheaper than something like a crewed landing on the Moon.

The asteroid retrieval mission is estimated to cost something like $2.5 billion over ~10 years, which really isn't much (ISS maintenance in a single year costs more than that, and the development of a lunar lander would be $8-10 billion). It's one of the only interesting human missions NASA can do with its current budget.

It's not primarily a science mission, it's more of an engineering/technology development mission. The 40 kW solar electric tug that will be built to ferry the asteroid is a pretty big improvement over what we have, and a similar design could be used in the future to send cargo for a crewed Mars or Moon mission.

Also, as far as I know there are still plans for a crewed mission to a large in-the-wild asteroid after the mission to the retrieved asteroid, that hasn't changed. The asteroid retrieval mission is just the first step in a campaign to get to Mars.

[Nibb31]

The ARM is a bit risky for and Orion/SLS validation mission. First of all, it depends on technology that isn't part of the Orion/SLS mission and is unproven. Secondly, the mission relies on docking and EVA which are kind of pushing boundaries for a first flight.

A proper validation mission should go through a series of tests to verify that manoeuvering, life support, and other functions work properly before committing to a rather complex BEO flight involving EVA, docking procedures, and engine restarts. The vehicle would have more instrumentation than on an operational flight and there should be passive abort provisions throughout the mission.

By comparison, the first EVA on the Shuttle program was on STS-6, and Apollo was on its third manned flight (Apollo 9). I find it risky to plan an EVA for the first manned flight on a brand new vehicle.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[Captain_Party]

I think it's also a little side-ploy to get 'ol Barack re-elected. Because if JFK hadn't been killed, he would have definitely been re-elected. He got men to the moon! That is, if 'ol Barack is still in power in 2025...

[dharak1]

Can't presidents only serve 2 terms?

[Albert VDS]

I think it's also a little side-ploy to get 'ol Barack re-elected. Because if JFK hadn't been killed, he would have definitely been re-elected. He got men to the moon! That is, if 'ol Barack is still in power in 2025...

Congratulations you broke 2 rules in 1 sentence. You're not allowed to discuss about politics or conspiracy theories.

[Idobox]

Orion is supposed to allow 21 days missions. Now the question is, what can you do in 21 days that you can't do in the ISS?

In this day and age, there is not a lot of things humans can do better than much cheaper robotic probes. Even sending humans to Mars is not really useful, when you can keep them in orbit to control surface robots.

Now, sending astronauts to look at an asteroid, even a small one, is a pretty good mission. People are still studying moon rocks today, so I imagine a real geologist can extract more information than even the best robot, and meteorites are baked by reentry and contaminated by Earth, so it make sense to study them in space.

But most importantly, I think it's an excellent technical challenge for NASA. They haven't built a crewed spaceship since the shuttle, so it is a good idea to do small things before planning a planetary mission. And dealing with an inert, irregular piece of inert matter, possibly covered in sand or pebbles, as well as long stays far from LEO is an excellent preparation.

On a different question, why 21 days? That's a total overkill for taxi missions to ISS, and very big for any mission in Earth's SOI, but far too short for anything outside the SOI.

[Captain_Party]

Congratulations you broke 2 rules in 1 sentence. You're not allowed to discuss about politics or conspiracy theories.

Ah crap. Didn't mean to. Not on this section if the forums much... But yeah, the SLS is terrible, no-one wants it, NASA are better off just investing in the Atlas V - Heavy, and SpaceX.

[Idobox]

To be fair, politicians funding popular projects to be re-elected, even if they don't consider them useful, that's not exactly conspiracy theory.

Now, talking of how the moon landing was shot by crypto-communists in a studio in a Mars underground base built by the ****, that's an excellent conspiracy theory.

(edit) apparently, the word filter doesn't like Godwin point earning German bad guys. Either that or it detects really absurd conspiracies theories.

[Nibb31]

On a different question, why 21 days? That's a total overkill for taxi missions to ISS, and very big for any mission in Earth's SOI, but far too short for anything outside the SOI.

It's enough for a decent lunar sortie, even though none of them are planned. Orion won't do ISS taxi missions, but it is supposed to do taxi missions to the DSH or EML-2 station. The 21-day duration is for powered-up mode. It is supposed to be powered down when docked to a Mars vehicle or DSH.

[vetrox]

Sometimes i look at this chart

And still long for the good ol' days when nasa's budget was 1% of the federal budget. Its strange to think that as time goes on we get better technology (or refine the tech we have) but dont have the money to use that better technology :S Just watching that budget get smaller and smaller until its just one guy sitting at a nasa office drawing pictures of genetalia on a piece of paper with a nasa letterhead on it.

Edited January 30, 2014 by vetrox

[rdfox]

By comparison, the first EVA on the Shuttle program was on STS-6, and Apollo was on its third manned flight (Apollo 9). I find it risky to plan an EVA for the first manned flight on a brand new vehicle.

I, and thousands of other people found it insanely risky to have a crew on board for STS-1 and STS-2, given that NO American manned spacecraft had ever flown without at least one unmanned test flight. But that worked out. Lots of people thought it was insanely risky to plan to fly humans on only the third launch of a Saturn V, but that worked out, too.

Spaceflight is inherently risky. Putting an EVA on the first manned flight isn't any more risky than putting a crew on board, since every single item that has to work for an EVA would have to work for any manned flight.

Personally, I'd feel there's a bigger risk in going to the Moon on the first manned flight than there is in having an EVA during it... but nobody seems to be complaining about THAT.

[metaphor]

The ARM is a bit risky for and Orion/SLS validation mission. First of all, it depends on technology that isn't part of the Orion/SLS mission and is unproven. Secondly, the mission relies on docking and EVA which are kind of pushing boundaries for a first flight.

A proper validation mission should go through a series of tests to verify that manoeuvering, life support, and other functions work properly before committing to a rather complex BEO flight involving EVA, docking procedures, and engine restarts. The vehicle would have more instrumentation than on an operational flight and there should be passive abort provisions throughout the mission.

By comparison, the first EVA on the Shuttle program was on STS-6, and Apollo was on its third manned flight (Apollo 9). I find it risky to plan an EVA for the first manned flight on a brand new vehicle.

It is pretty risky for a first crewed flight, but a lot of the risks will be bought down during the unmanned mission in 2017 that will have almost exactly the same mission profile. The only things different during the crewed flight would be docking and EVAs. Also nowadays we do have the benefit of past experiences, and more time and resources to test the spacecraft on the ground (rather than on test flights). So I don't see it as too risky.

[jwenting]

It is pretty risky for a first crewed flight, but a lot of the risks will be bought down during the unmanned mission in 2017 that will have almost exactly the same mission profile. The only things different during the crewed flight would be docking and EVAs. Also nowadays we do have the benefit of past experiences, and more time and resources to test the spacecraft on the ground (rather than on test flights). So I don't see it as too risky.

our terminal case of risk aversion is what's shackling us to the surface of the planet. Won't be long until someone says we should ban aircraft because one might crash and kill someone (in fact that's already happening, airports are finding it nearly impossible to expand, departure and arrival routes are under constant threat of being the victims of trigger happy lawyers)...