Nelson Confirms Earlier Asteroid Mission Stories
Senator: NASA to Lasso Asteroid, Bring it Closer, AP
“The ship would capture the 500-ton, 25-foot asteroid in 2019. Then using an Orion space capsule, a crew of about four astronauts would nuzzle up next to the rock in 2021 for spacewalking exploration, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.”
NASA Asteroid Capture Mission: First Real Step in Utilizing Extraterrestrial Resources, SpaceRef earlier post
“Charlie Bolden made his cryptic comments at the NAS in December 2012: “when the President announced that an asteroid would be the next destination for NASA’s human spaceflight program, he did not say NASA had to fly all the way to an asteroid. What matters is the ability to put humans with an asteroid.”. Well, Bolden was referring to this idea which was still in flux as part of the budget process.”
I think this is an interesting mission proposal. I’m not as dismissive about it as some. I think the asteroid miner wannabes do need something to practice on.
But I honestly don’t see why a 70t SLS and MPCV are necessary. A 53t FH and a kitted-out Dragon might do it. Hell, two FHs and they can go with a camper (bigelow module) and everything. It should certainly still cost less than a SLS launch.
Besides if SLS and MPCV are going to be human-rated to the same standards they expect from the commercial companies when are they going to be ready to go?
FH can do it. SLS has certain advantages in requiring less sophisticated technology. But all in all, this mission is very feasible.
For studying an asteroid, it’s an interesting mission concept.
But the original goal of the Asteroid mission was to be a stepping stone to a Mars mission: Medium duration, beyond cislunar space, etc.
With this, they’ve turned the stepping stone into its own goal. It smells more like “let’s get something done quickly to give SLS and Orion a “mission accomplished” banner.
I liked the original goal better. This one is not daring enough as the next main goal. I can be a stepping stone to the stepping stone, but they shouldn’t drop the main goal.
I’ve posted this on NASASpaceflight.com too:
It’s my opinion that this mission may be a tacit admission that the NEA mission as currently envisaged may be unexecutable in the current budgetary environment. Or at least not with NASA’s current corporate weaknesses when it comes to hardware development.
Another likely millstone around the neck is SLS’s development costs that keep driving payload development leftwards. It’s beginning to seem that, if any SLS mission is to occur before 2030, it has to be in cis-Lunar space and cannot include a major hardware development beyond what is already being developed.
I would take the position that this mission, which will cost pretty much the same as the trip to an asteroid, has far greater utility and may I say inspiration than any mission short of a lunar base or landing on Mars.
It’s the most sensible mission proposal I can remember coming out of NASA in a long time. A really elegant way to advance several goals simultaneously.
Very well put.
Agree! I like this proposal
I don’t even consider SLS as part of the picture. But the concept of bringing an asteroid closer to home where it can be worked on more effectively and cheaply is what I consider important. Initially it’s a science mission, but what they learn I think will lend itself to later processing and using asteroid resources in cis-lunar space, and later on perhaps farther afield. This is the sort of long-range thinking that NASA needs to do because industry won’t (there’s no short-term money in it).
I like the concept, as a smaller stepping stone.
It’s good for Space science, but not so much for exploration.But see how the terms SLS and Orion are tightly integrated into the PR? And how a mission to a large in-orbit asteroid is not even mentioned? Shrug. The while thing will be irrelevant soon.
meekGee,
I think because we live now in such a media-driven world we’re going to see program redefinitions, and even program go/no go decisions as they’re happening. I have to assume that in the past the same sort of revisions and redesigns always happened during programs as new things were learned, but we simply weren’t told about them all.
As an example, NASA Press Kits used to be maybe a dozen double-spaced, type-written pages with large margins and indents, and two or three black and white pictures, and usually nothing more was made available to the public until after the mission. Now we get long, full-color documents, instantly available on line, and updates sometimes every week on web sites, all pretty much in real time — and many more (often pointless) press releases. So now we get told almost everything, even though some of it is bound to change completely. It’s a toss-up which way is more frustrating.
Steve
In the thread about movie trailer I was critical of the fact that NASA bills itself as the great explorers. NASA needs to cool the explorer line and sell the r and d part more that enables others to explore and SETTLE space. I think the idea of the video is great but NASA is trying sell the wrong message. And if that’s how they define themselves they are missing the reason they should exist at all. SLS is the embodiment of this explorer line of BS. As others just said this is the type of work NASA should be doing to HELP expand the frontier
There were only 5 posts in that thread. I wish some of you would debate my last comment in that thread, I think its important.
DTARS – the original Obama proposal had technology development missions as its central thrust. They wanted to go with commercial launch, and have large R&D aimed specifically at the problems of getting to Mars.
This was the great “you’re killing HSF” debate. The reason for it was that from congress’s point of view, “explore” is just a thin veil for building large rockets in their districts. They couldn’t give a flying hoot where these rockets will go. The R&D plan rubbed congress the wrong way, all the regular slogans about “leadership” started flying, and fast-forward to today.
Anyway, all of this won’t matter for long. A Mars plan is coming along through SpaceX. Congress will continue to push SLS until it either collapses like Ares I did, or paralyses any future exploration like STS did. Either way, NASA can’t do much about it.
They could make their explorer Star trek video look less like an SLS commercial?!
meekGee,
I’d say you’ve hit the nail right on the head. When Obama proposed R&D I cheered. When Congress shut him down I swore. These days, nobody spits in the eye of the Constitution more than Congress. They exist only to ensure their continued existence.
(Caveat: I’m a foreigner, so my opinion is not totally appropriate.)
I also think that it is an interesting concept and one more worthy of attention than a mission to an asteroid that by definition would not last long enough to do anything useful.
Lets say that 8 meter in diameter rock would be brought back. That would be a LOT of metal to be processed (if they brought an M class object) into something useful in a libration point orbit. If it was a piece of an extinct comet core that would be a LOT of water. I would hope that they would not just go for a stony object as the value is less, but still interesting.
This makes a lot more sense to me than many of the things that have come before.
Agreed Dennis. Let me add that I think if they accomplished nothing more than getting to the asteroid, “capturing” it and moving it to the selected new location, that in itself would be a worthwhile learning process, as well as a good test of whatever hardware they do end up using.
I don’t see why you say that. It’s like you’re equating the destination with the mission goals.
Interesting comment lacking in facts. This is mission is actually now more relevant given the recent media attention to NEO’s, all other mission objectives aside, this mission will no doubt yield important data on moving asteroids, be it toward an Earth accessible orbit or away from Earth in the case of an NEO with a significant likelihood of striking Earth. Moreover, that could draw more public support. Such mission will tick off many important boxes in terms of NEO’s, human deep space missions, and potentially missions to Mars or elsewhere.
WOW!! NASA has a unique revolutionary mission at last! Oh wait, Planetary Resources already announced this mission months ago. And a plan to map NE asteroids and analyze them with a well defined, progressive satellite program.
In the words of Keith, NASA beaten again.
Fair enough, but before counting our chickens, let’s wait and see if either of them actually gets the money they need.
Also consider that neither party has provided any real details on what their follow-on activities, if any, will be. This could make the difference in which one, if either, is actually a step forward.
Way off the mark. The mission concept appeared before any of the commercial companies had their press conferences.
“When the President announced that an asteroid would be the next
destination for NASA’s human spaceflight program, he did not say NASA
had to fly all the way to an asteroid.” Hehe, most brilliant and sensible example of reverse mission creep I’ve ever seen!
I love this idea. A couple of questions, to which there may not be answers yet.
(1) 500 tons moved around with a SEP? What level of upgrade for SEP tech would be required?
(2) Is this NASA-only, or is their any indication they’ll try to defray the cost by sharing with the asteroid mining outfits?
There are three primary SEP technology candidates. If the SLS is used as the launch vehicle, then the mission can be accomplished using current higher power Hall thrusters. If you are forced to consider use of Falcon Heavy or ELV, then the NEXT ion propulsion system would be the best candidate. Some people are advocating use of magnetically-shielded Hall thrusters for this option, but this technology is relatively immature compared to the other options.
Several new technologies are needed for this mission. To speed things up they should be tested separately before being integrated.
For instance the SEP can be tested by putting an NDS docking system on the top of it and flying cargoes to lunar orbit.
One “pillar” of this mission is that the power and propulsion technology are all within reach of existing approaches. The outlines of what the SEP system will require are covered in the KISS study (here) and various publications such as: Brophy, J. and Oleson, S., “Spacecraft Conceptual Design for Returning Entire near-Earth Asteroids,” AIAA-2012-4067, July 2012. Briefly, you need 20-50 kW of power, a few metric tons of xenon, and high-power, long-life Hall thrusters.
Ken,
Do you think there are enough good test hours of Hall thrusters at the necessary power level to be comfortable of having them last the duration of this mission?
Also, depending on the final destination for the asteroid, some station-keeping, or at least fine tuning of the free fall orbit, maybe necessary. Would the high-thrust Halls be capable of a low-thrust mode for this as well do you know?
Steve,
Hall thrusters have a flight history dating to 1970 and more than 250 of them have flown, making Hall thrusters the most successful electric propulsion technology in the history of the space program. The expertise to realize flight thrusters with the above capabilities also exists in the US now, making this a very realistic approach. Nothing is without risk, but Hall thrusters are up to the task.
Since the SEP system uses a cluster of thrusters, throttling in discrete stages is easy to realize. Further, Hall thrusters can be throttled in current and voltage over large ratios which allows for fine variations in thrust. Pushing around 500 t is hard though, so you can expect to be operating near max thrust most of the time.
Thanks.
Yes, easily.
I can’t agree more that Obama has floundered. I’ve been a very strong supporter of this president, helped in the election, etc., not expecting full congruence of positions. But the kind of non-direction I see in NASA with the attendant waste of time by very smart people– well, it just pisses me off, and it starts with complete lack of policy leadership.
“In fact I doubt it will happen anyways, this admin lacks leadership, is
incapable of project management, has no clue what vision is, starves
NASA…”
No argument, but the same could be said of every president from Nixon onward. For human exploration we have been stuck in LEO since about 1973 -40 years! Pushing half a century! Every president – democratic and republican – promises some grand vision in their second term which will be financed sometime by a future administration and never seems to pan out.
I can’t but help to think they are trying to “help” the private companies with their potential investors and maybe even proving out some approaches courtesy the U.S. taxpayer. “If NASA is planning it, it must be possible.” say the investors. But at any rate the rock should be shuttled to LL4 not lunar orbit. If you need the Moon’s gravity to help delta-V so much that you’ll risk an unstable orbit might as well not even do it.
Oh, I see. I thought you were critically thinking. I didn’t realize that you were making a political statement. Sorry, I was expecting reason, not dogma.
CD,
Has it occurred to you that maybe entertaining the public isn’t the primary purpose of having a space program?
There is much in this seemingly simple mission that will not be simple at all. There is a lot that can be learned, and needs to be learned, in several areas. The task of safely and accurately moving the rock from point A to point B in space, at leaving it in a stable state, will be a major challenge all by itself, and is something we will need to know how to do effectively, safely and repeatedly in the future. To date, everything involved in this mission is only theory.
Personally, I like the fact that this mission, so far, unlike many NASA missions, isn’t so crammed full of things to do that it’s likely to fail. It appears to me to be a reasonable collection of tasks for one mission.
Also, with a little creative imagination, I don’t see why this mission can’t be as interesting to the general public as pretty much any NASA mission of the last 30 or 40 years. Nobody watches a whole mission from start to finish except the people involved with it. The public sees one, maybe two 30-second TV spots on the 11 o’clock news, if we’re lucky. In some cases Discovery Channel or PBS will run a one-hour special that will be watched only by space fans, the same people who check out the mission web site once a week (maybe). When you put it into that framework, this mission has as much potential to attract the public as any other, and maybe more since it’s a two-part mission.
But primarily, it’s science and engineering, not entertainment.
Steve
Noah,
I see it simply as a common recognition that this is something that will be needed and important in the future — a nearer future than many of the other ideas being kicked around. I think it’a also considered attractive by both industry and government because it has the one-two punch of addressing both natural resource management and money-making potential, a social and economic driver in one package. At some point we have to put aside things like inspiration and concentrate more on long-term survival; maybe this is a step in that direction.
Steve
OBSERVE-TOUCH-EARLY-OFTEN
I love the notion that PR and DSI are somehow in “direct competition” with NASA. These startups have only a handful of employees and have never actually done anything. Just because someone has a press conference does not make them credible in spaceflight.
Good point. On the other hand, having a huge space agency doesn’t seem to mean you can get a lot done, except powerpoint presentations, of course.
Steve, I won’t argue about NASA’s often glacial progress. For all I know, PR and DSI are the next SpaceX, but until you’ve done something it’s a pretty poor comparison in my view to put the bold goals of these young companies next to NASA. SpaceX is the only company out there I think at the moment that can really be put up against NASA. If Falcon Heavy is successful (with taxpayer support I might add), it will be pretty hard to understand why SLS is necessary.
Ken,
I agree, absolutely. In fact I’d say SpaceX’s major claim to fame is mostly that they are the only ones in the US to actually design, build and USE a new LV or spacecraft on the HSF-related side of things in years. PR, DSI and even Orbital have yet to actually do anything worthy of being considered as in the space game. Truth be told, I think if it weren’t for the non-HSF programs LM and even Boeing would be losing their status as space players. I think we’ve become the hare on this side of the ocean and ESA has quietly become the tortoise.
I’m of the school that says, no matter who else does what, SLS is not necessary and never was.
Questions:
Has anyone considered the risk that putting an asteroid in lunar orbit or libration point would result in hazardous space debris?
In fact–
-Couldn’t the ultimate result of an asteroid in lunar orbit be a ring of particles and pebbles around the moon?
-Couldn’t the ultimate result of an asteroid at a lunar L-point be a cloud of debris rendering that L-point permanently hazardous, and possibly off-limits?
I think these risks need to be studied.
That’s part of why (I think) it should be a combined science and industry program. Anyone intending to “mine” the asteroids for resources is going to have to perfect methods of containment, since the debris in your concern will be their “product.”
Yes.
No.
No.
“500-ton, 25-foot”.
unless it is a class m….
More good reasons for getting a metal asteroid?
Shielding for an L2 station.
Materials for an L2 station.
However!
I would not put the system in EML2. EML2 is an UNSTABLE libration point due to solar influences. The only stable libration points are L4 and L5. The delta V per year is about 18 m/s which is a LOT of propellant for that sized rock.
The rock needs to go into L5 if for no other reason to make aging space geeks happy. However, that rock in L5 would be very stable over the life of the solar system with no danger of ever reentering.
hikingmike: “More good reasons for getting a metal asteroid?”
First we decide that asteroids may hold valuable substances and appear easy to mine, so it appears that mining may be cost-effective.
But then, as reality sets in, we gradually get sucked into a series of restraints:
-We should favor metallic ones, but are they likely to have much more than iron and nickel?
-The mining of a solid metal asteroid is probably slower and more expensive than mining a softer asteroid.
-The alleged or hoped for debris-containment will also have a cost.
So how much, if any, cost effectiveness remains?
Or are we going to dispense with the expectation of actual increased national wealth, and justify the asteroid expense as part of building space assets for an immaterial, exploratory value?
They might be able to test out mining techniques and gear nearby before going chasing after something bigger, farther away, and much more difficult velocity. I see this helping them quite a bit.
There’s certainly lots of junk circling the Earth that they can practice on — approach and grapple an old dead satellite and move it to a point where it will safely deorbit and burn up or hit the mid pacific.
‘…the debris in your concern will be their “product.”‘
Mining on Earth produces more waste material than “product”. And it has not been the lesson of mining on Earth that industry cleans up after itself.
There also has been no real effort to control orbital debris from LEO space activity, commercial or otherwise.
To Paul451,
Re “Yes.”
Who?
And this time please provide a reference to the risk study documnent.