Asteroid Boulder Retrieval Mission Starts To Drift Away
NASA’s asteroid mission isn’t dead yet, Ars Technica
“This week, as the agency’s chief financial officer, David Radzanowski, discussed the president’s budget in a conference call with reporters, he let slip a seemingly huge piece of news. The robotic spacecraft NASA planned to grab an asteroid boulder would not launch in 2020, as originally planned, but some time in the early- to mid-2020s. The agency’s notional launch date had changed to 2023, Radzanowski said. But he then cautioned reporters not to focus on that date. It could be earlier than that, he said, adding: “Don’t get fixated that there’s a delay at this point in time.” But it is difficult to see 2023 as anything but a three-year delay.”
Keith’s note: This evaporating interest is not surprising given that NASA never really knew why it was doing this Asteroid Boulder Retrieval Mission anyway. Either it was/was not trying to protect Earth and/or this was/was not a stepping stone on the #JourneyToMars or something. Charlie Bolden’s confusion on this topic was in evidence last year at budget time:
|
|
That sucks. If EM-2 is going to launch in 2023 (optimistic, but possible), then ARM will miss the boat for being part of that mission. It’s too bad, since ARM combined with EM-2 could have killed three birds with one stone: test Orion and SLS, test out solar-electric drives, and do “hands”-on asteroid research.
Wasn’t Bolden a huge promoter for this at some point? Now he’s limiting his exposure.
Who first proposed ARM? And who first proposed the ‘B’ (boulder grab) option?
Did anyone, REALLY, think either was anything but a joke, one of those things introduced during a strategic planning meeting to break up the tough discussions with a throwaway laugh?
More stultifying “scientific enquiry” c/o the folks at Caltech
I always thought ARM was a joke. 99% of the American public is unaware of that plan. If/when they find out about it, there will be an outcry about the waste of money on a useless project.
The whole program got corrupted due to budgets. Originally, in the “flexible path”, the idea was to visit an asteroid as a stepping stone to mars, or the moon. No need for a lander! That was very desirable, since one could not be afforded. This idea at first had merit, then it got totally sidetracked, morphing into bringing an asteroid back into lunar orbit to study it. Studying an asteroid was never what it was about, it was supposed to be a technology demonstration and learning mission about deep space. Then even that morphed into bringing only a boulder back! Absolutely laughable! We have numerous boulder asteroids that have plunged to Earth, they don’t need to be studied in lunar orbit. So, I hope it is good riddance to a horrible concept of a mission.
I agree. The mission morphed from learning about asteroids to providing a mission for astronauts. But I also feel the Augustine Committee could have done a better job by identifying cost reduction and LEO infrastructure development as an initial requirement for a long term integrated program, rather than providing a list of alternative destinations.
There are two asteroids conveniently orbiting Mars. Why not send Orion to visit one of them?
No need to develop a Mars lander or ascent vehicle, though you might need to add a simple landing gear to the Orion capsule.
Good idea, but a Delta Heavy or maybe even an Atlas V can send a mission like this to Phobos way sooner and cheaper than SLS would. If NASA wants to wait for a paper rocket they can wait for Falcon Heavy and still launch sooner.
Or a Falcon. I think the Delta is on the way out. it would be far more effective to send robotic rovers to Phobos and Diemos, possibly with small sample return capsules. This would also be a good mission to try out electric propulsion.
ULA has already announced that they plan to phase out the smaller Delta, and I expect DH will go away just as soon as sonething else (FH) pushes it out as the heavy-weight champion. I used a shoutout to DH here because, for short-term mission planning purposes at least, the Falcon Heavy is still a paper rocket and it and F9 still need to earn their stripes as Interplanetary launchers. Launch windows to Mars can be hard to hit witj a new rocket and DH, in spite of its ridiculous price, is still cheaper than SLS and also actually better than SLS (proven history), big enough to do the job, and available enough to put in an earlier launch window.
Good point. The hydrogen fueled core stage has still has some advantage on deep space trajectories that need high velocity but don’t need a really heavy payload, but it does not seem like a long term solution.
I agree the FH is paper but hopefully not for long. With an electric upper stage the FH could put the whole assembly in LEO and it could spiral out from there.
I’d rather not. The slow spiral out from LEO, required by electric propulsion, spends a long time in the Van Allen belts. Designing for that would be a pain. I suspect a launch to escape velocity (C3=0) and electric propulsion form there would be easier.
You have a point, although GPS and GEO satellites are in the margins of the van Allen belts, and significant radiation tolerance is needed even in deep space. However the main advantage of SLS is reportedly shortening of travel time by a high energy (beyond escape velocity) departure. Electric propulsion enroute could substantially shorten trip time for a vehicle launched with only escape velocity, which could be achieved by a smaller LV.
The experience of SMART-1 (ESA) the damaging effects of the Van Allen Belts ended at an altitude of some 5,900 km! [Koppel C. R. , Marchandise F., Estublier D., Jolivet L. “The SMART-1 Electric Propulsion Subsystem In flight experience,” AIAA-2004-3435.] The problems start when ploughing back and forth e.g. OASIS
More here FWIIW
https://brobof.wordpress.co…
The reason for ARM was to provide a mission for SLS/Orion without having to develop actual “deep space” hardware like a HAB module, lander, and etc.
SLS/Orion is a Congressionally mandated solution looking for (an affordable) problem to solve.
maybe you should be glad your own gig isn’t on the line
The changes that are coming are a net growth for the industry. So anyone with a “gig on the line” should see what’s going on and be ready to grow with the industry. I don’t think that the contractors that build SLS/Orion (or Atlas…or Delta…) will be hurting for more things to build. They can see what’s going on as well as anyone else can. The question is whether or not the worker has invested in his or her self to be ready for change either to be able to move within their existing jobs to new projects or move to other space industry companies.
Or if they’re old enough, retire and watch the show. 🙂
I work for a private company so if our product line isn’t making any money, my job would be on the line. We also have several competitors to keep us motivated in terms of efficiency and development cost.
IMHO, the way SLS/Orion is being run, it doesn’t have much motivation (at the contractor level) to keep costs low. It’s all about billable hours at the middle management layer of a government contractor.
ARM is linked to SLS/Orion. So this was already known, even if not advertised. You have that 1st SLS flight in the late 20-teens. A 2nd one that has the new upper stage, in the 2023-ish time-frame, and THEN you can see if ARM is still around and hitches a ride on the 3rd or maybe 4th flight (2030-ish). Unless ARM gets “un-hitched” and onto some other rocket, a scenario that will be one last act of desperation as it all falls apart. (Orion will be in the same straits).
Obama told Bolden to go to an asteroid, and congress told him to do it with SLS/Orion. Bolden has done as much as anyone could with those two knucklehead mandates. Now, on to the next administration.
I’m becoming increasingly disinterested in this the further they push the date back. Too much happening in commercial space, to fast. If NASA can’t do their work fast enough to serve as a tech supplier in this effort then they will be no help at all and just duplicate the efforts of others on exploration and use of asteroids. In fast-moving tech advances, if you are not up front then many of your efforts become wasted as the advances and lessons learned of others make your work pointless.
“If NASA can’t do their work fast enough to serve as a tech supplier in this effort…”
Unfortunately, much of the tech in SLS/Orion is old, outdated, and expendable. It’s just not inspiring other than “it’s big”.
It.may seem irrelevant, but I am reminded of the gardens attached to a castle in Cordova, Spain. When I saw them, I felt they could have been the inspiration for the much more famous gardens at Versailles. Except for some king telling the landscapers, “But make it bigger. If it’s bigger, it must be better, so I want mine to be really big.” I’m afraid some people really believe small and efficient is just small-time and not impressive or worthwhile.
Here’s at least one reason that the #JourneyToARock makes sense: it requires development of technology needed for humans to actually live in space (as opposed to the bottom of gravity wells).
At some point we will want to manipulate these so-called “rocks”- they are actually ore-bearing sources of wealth. We will want to locate and extract the minerals for use in space to build habitats for people- in space.
Better to prospect the actual asteroids with robotic systems before deciding on a strategy to extract and utilize materials.
Oh. You mean we should find out if there’s gold in them thar hills before packing the pitons?
It might be feasible to send robot minors with robot pitons. Which they might need just to hold themselves down on the surface. It would be really interesting might think about the least costly and most efficient mission to bring small samples of several asteroids back to Earth (or the ISS). Unless there is some Congressionally-mandated requirement to find a mission for a Congressionally mandated HLV,
I don’t think a sample return is necessary. It’s traditional for prospecting, but measuring commercially interesting chemicals and atoms can be done in situ. I don’t think a sample return is needed unless you are interested in isotope ratios or astrobiology.
I agree, in-situ analysis is perfectly reasonable for scientific purposes and would allow a probe with a given delta-V capability to explore more asteroids. I was only suggesting a multiple sample return as a way of demonstrating the technology to robotically return materials from the asteroids, should mining ever become feasible.
I’ve wondered about that- the issue of returning minerals from asteroids to Earth, and wondering if it will ever become viable given the transportation and especially the landing costs of getting these materials to Earth surface.
I’m thinking that the materials’ value will be proven as necessary metals for manufacture in space. Yes, that’s a long way off, especially given our current love affair with disposable rockets. at some point though habitats where humans live full live will become more attractive. In those cases, lofting manufactured goods from earth makes decreasing sense.
I think. But who knows.
If we can promote human habitation in space through low cost of access, then there may be a market for manufacturing in space. But the people have to come first, and in significant numbers.
I see this a little bit differently (but not much). Your view, as I have discerned, is that machines can do quite a lot and can return mountains of science. This is true, but it doesn’t establish space as a home.
I see a space transportation system. Not covered wagons, but a highway. And while the Aldrin device has many critics, the primary thrust is a good one because it is, in fact, a highway. And it is not the only “highway”.
In this scenario, we would focus on building spaceships. These are machines suitable for interplanetary travel. They don’t crash into planets like capsules. They move from orbit to orbit, or orbit the sun, or whatever works best. This depends on refueling and it depends on some very dicey ability to reliably dock.
They must be refueled, certainly, but they are in effect space stations. They will support crews living on them. With time, similar machines will prospect for ice for fuel, machines with people living on them in the manner of oil tankers (on a rather more endless sea, but still).
Costs likely to approach trillions, but incrementally, and with the significant caveat that the gear isn’t splashed. The American colonies depended on ships going back and forth, not crashing on shoals every time (which they did with some regularity).
Given forward-thinking research into how things are manipulated in space, or if a big spinning device really does work for creating gravity suitable for lifelong habitation, or how to harden ships for radiation, or countless other necessary fundamental research, all towards the goal of *living* in space: given this type of research at some point we would create the ability to actually *live* in space. And I don’t mean float around in a clunky and noisy station. I mean *live*, as in have a meaningful life.