Space Quarterly Free Story: Making the Case for Human Missions to Asteroids

1. Does the Orion’s service Module have the delta-V to bring the crew + hab back from the asteroid?

   Is a departure stage under development that can send the manned hardware to an asteroid?

   1. “Does the Orion’s service Module have the delta-V to bring the crew + hab back from the asteroid?“

      Andrew,

      You’ve asked good questions, which need to be answered, but in one respect I encourage a different line of thinking — If you’re going to send a hab to an asteroid, why bring the whole thing back to Earth? The way I see it, there are three mission modes for a hab: 1) the journey out; 2) the on-site activities; and 3) the journey back. Assuming that you’re going to do later missions in the same neighborhood, or further out in the same direction, then at the end of mode 2 just leave all of the hab that’s not needed for mode 3 anchored to the asteroid. You can then reuse it later at the same location, or (perhaps more likely) pick it up on the way to the site of a later mission. If it has been designed and built to have a longer life than just one mission, it makes no sense to me to bring it back to Earth and then drag it (or another one) all the way back out to the asteroid belt again. Once mode 2 of a mission is completed, you leave behind anything not essential to either returning your crew to Earth or follow-up study of science data and samples acquired. On any manned mission you’re going to require much more mass/volume for supplies, tools, fuel, raw materials, etc. on the way out than coming back, so if you design your hab (in fact the whole spacecraft) such that anything you don’t need coming home easily detaches from what you do need, then a) you don’t return anything that doesn’t need to be returned, and b) everything else is retained on site for future use.

      If you leave your no-longer-required hab and spacecraft elements on-site, you save a lot on fuel, you have storage for any equipment and/or supplies that you want to leave there, and you have one or more modules in place (and material/supplies) for of any infrastructure that you want to establish out there. You’ll also have storage for any processes happening at any time; things like fuel depots, collecting natural or processed resources until you have a “full load” to transport elsewhere, a “shop” for construction and maintenance, emergency shelter/supplies in case of trouble, communications relaying, all kinds of things. We could then start planning a “big picture” space future instead of inefficiently treating every mission as an independent restart from square one.

      There’s a lot more that I could add, but the concept should be pretty clear by now. Never throw away anything that can potentially be reused! We desperately need to start planning missions that are integral components of an overall space infrastructure/plan, not stand-alone independent programs that compete for resources, facilities, money and political favor. Proper planning can give us “the basics” of a space base at every mission site, where “the basics” of a “space base” are the mandatory functional elements required to be a base, much like every city needs a common set of mandatory functional elements to be a working city (transportation, waste removal, power generation/management, communications, etc.). Think of it as planned, synergistic evolution.

      Steve

      1. The trip to an asteroid is a one off.  As it orbits the sun the asteroid’s position changes so much that we will be unable to return.  The habitation module will be needed during the return journey.

         We may be able to jettison a store cupboard and things like robotic arms.

         edit: grammar and clarification

      2.  Mars’s moon Phobos is a different matter.  We will be returning to that, so a large habitation module and hanger can be left.  It will be more of a spacestation.

         The Phobos base/spacestation can be sent ahead of the manned mission, possible on a SEP tug.

      3. “there are three mission modes for a hab: 1) the journey out; 2) the on-site activities; and 3) the journey back.”

         If you don’t need a hab module for the trip out, then you don’t need it on-site. And if you need it for the trip out, you certainly need it for the trip back. The hab is least utilised at the asteroid itself.

         You’re thinking of the hab module like the LM in Apollo, when it’s more like the CM.

2. Science fiction for the mid 21st century.

   1. The idea is doable, the question is should we do it first.

      My biggest problem with near term resource extraction missions to an asteroid is simple, time cost of money.  It takes more time than a dash mission that we can do now to extract any significant water from hydrated minerals on a NEO.

      We already know we have a LOT of water on the Moon.  Lets get some of it along with the metals, and build a spacecraft that can do the asteroid mission right.  Orion will never be more than a touch and go system for this mission.

      I do like the idea as an exploration mission but we need the develop infrastructure on the Moon.  Which is more important to near and mid term solar system economic development?  That is the question

      1.  The idea is doable, the question is should we do it first.
         Absolutely. Next question is – what do we have as “tools” in the toolchest (e.g. recently developed systems components), and how do we develop the capability to do and support such.

         Then we chose among “multiple concurrent exploration targets”, knowing we’ll have many “busts” or “dry holes”.

         It takes more time than a dash mission that we can do now to extract any significant water from hydrated minerals on a NEO.
         Or moon for that matter. Invest in an infrastructure for “multiple tries”. Don’t get hung up on the ultimate systems components first – do a reasonable first step, make it reusable, evolve it into human rated, and commit to a broad set of missions of both NEO/moon.

         The way to increase lunar programs is to make them a part of other solar system programs. A pragmatic reality.

         Oh, and why you do an EML station, is that the reason for the people is to rework the S/C and “launch”  from there with low dV. For all reachable targets. Guess which one will get the most attention.

         1. The way to increase lunar programs is to make them a part of other solar system programs. A pragmatic reality.
            Lets see 

            1. Where’s the money for this broad brush program.
            2. In order to get the rest of the solar system, the Moon is the crucial first step.

            Without 1, 2 is an imperative.

            With 2, you get 1 for a fraction of the cost.

            1.  Was speaking to political realities of 30+ years. You want to ignore it? Fine. We’ll talk again after another 30 years of inaction.

            2.  Was speaking to political realities of 30+ years. You want to ignore it? Fine. We’ll talk again after another 30 years of inaction.

               As am I.  I watched SEI get co-opted by the go to Mars crowd in the early 90’s.  Made the venture unaffordable.  Saw the exact same thing happen to Constellation.  As Gordon Woodcock has been known to say, going to Mars or these other destinations is easy to do, it just costs a lot more money.  In the case of the asteroid mission while it does have interest the kids that I talk to and work with are jazzed about the Moon just as much as Mars.

            3.  As am I.  I watched SEI get co-opted by the go to Mars crowd
               We agree on the need  in getting around the issue.

               You approach it from the outside and get stopped by the inside. I approach it from the inside, and get stopped by the outside. That’s the only difference.

               Unfortunately you need both to be sufficient.

               Here’s the issue – grassroots and political nuance are mutually exclusive. The grassroots “talent” can’t mess with the solar system first, moon second crowd. This of course strengthens the Marsies, who are always ready to go with emaciated resources because they are desperate – that’s why it usually fails.

               And the Marsies don’t trust the Lunatics, because rather than divert resources post lunar exploration developments, the Manifest destiny types want to do “Occupy Moon”  forever (to pay for the shipments of beans and rice) as a political statement as a hidden, ruthless agenda (they don’t really believe you can grow the beans and rice there and don’t want to try). On and on.

               Crabs pulling each other back into the crab pot, waiting for the others to die off so the remaining crab team can get out. Yet both are long lived, and the Lunatics are undermined by overspent, overpromised Apollo with a few boxes of rocks results, and the Marsies reliably score RBI’s with consistent scientific results that evolve the game in their favor.

               Lunatics can’t stand being a bag on the side of a Mars program – even though that means they get to do the same kind of results that the Marsies have been getting, get out of the box, and amping up budget – they aren’t patient.

               This is what the battle is all about. A “moon base” is a way to force planetary spending exclusively on the Moon – which is why it fails. Spending on EML1/2 generates the opposite fear – that we won’t compel funding  exclusively on the moon.

               Zero sum game, all about power.

            4. Lunatics can’t stand being a bag on the side of a Mars program – even though that means they get to do the same kind of results that the Marsies have been getting, get out of the box, and amping up budget – they aren’t patient.

               I know that many people think in these terms but this is the mistake in those people’s thinking.  I am just as interested as the next guy in getting to Mars.  However, looking at the cost involved in doing so for anything more than flags and footprints leads one to the inescapable conclusion that in order to do Mars in a sustainable manner you need the physical resources of the Moon.  

               I am with Paul Spudis in that he made a brilliant observation that NASA gets a certain amount of money every year no matter how good or badly they perform.  Thus the issue is how do we use that money most effectively to open the solar system.  

               The problem that Mike Griffin had was that the thought that if he committed enough resources to Constellation that he could get congress to go along with his increased expenditures as a jobs and bacon program.  Didn’t happen due to the Spudis thesis.  Thus the crucial question becomes how do we get to Mars on a Moon budget.  Duh, you go to the Moon, leverage other people’s interest in the Moon and use that to build the argument for opening Mars to colonization.

               The Marsies as you call them keep thinking that if congress just saw how inspired everyone was about the idea of going to Mars, the money would flow.  Us lunatics as you call us want to go to Mars just as badly but understand the realities of the situation.  We have been going round and round on this for 30 years and we will make progress when the Marsies finally figure out that we are all in this together but that you can’t drive a Porsche on a Volkswagen budget.

         2.  We have been going round and round on this for 30 years
            Why I spoke to the issue frankly.
            …  and we will make
            progress when the Marsies finally figure out that we are all in this
            together but that you can’t drive a Porsche on a Volkswagen budget.
            I’d put it differently. Neither wants the other to get a dime more at the expense of the other. Neither has the patience for “intermediate products”.

            am with Paul Spudis in that he made a brilliant observation that NASA
            gets a certain amount of money every year no matter how good or badly
            they perform.
            Spudis is a brilliant man. Spudis is also a “disappointed man”. Don’t trust his cynicism, any more than Griffin’s. It distorts and creates a terminal poison that some can’t detect. Makes one wary to what he suggests.

            Mike Griffin is a damn good aerospace engineer / consultant and in certain ways would trust him with my life. Yet for leadership, I wouldn’t trust him if he said water was wet.

            Planetary will continue to outfund/outperform anything lunar. I’ve said the reasons and given the way out. Ignore it, it’ll still remain.

3. Just what the HSF effort DOESN’T need: a one trip wonder.  Velcro-ing an astronaut to an asteroid (despite the pretty picture, an asteroid wouldn’t have sufficient gravity for an astronaut stroll about on) would almost certainly be a one-shot deal.  And would result in yet another mission that would be viewed as a waste of tax-payer money.  Oh boy, just what NASA needs!

   Building a permanent presence on the Moon, something everyone can glance up at and see – the Moon that is – would be something people could understand and appreciate.  Also, with the recent discovery of ample water supplies it is even more of a no-brainer.  It also just 2 days away – not months away, so if something happened to an astronaut, he could easily be returned to earth.  This last thing NASA needs is a death-watch deep in space.

   Lets face it, the rationale for an asteroid mission was that it wasn’t Bush’s idea.  Put politics aside and do what’s right – return to the Moon and stay there.  Use it as a first stepping-stone to the solar system.

   —John

   1. “Just what the HSF effort DOESN’T need: a one trip wonder.  Velcro-ing an astronaut to an asteroid […] would almost certainly be a one-shot deal.”… which you contrast with…
      “Building a permanent presence on the Moon,”

      You’re assuming that a lunar mission would be a permanent presence. But I see no evidence for that. I know that VSE called for a permanent base on the moon, but that wasn’t what got funded. (Contrast the proposals for Freedom spacestation in the ’80s with what you actually got.) Those “pretty pictures” of the moon base were a wild fiction even less realistic than these asteroid pics.

      [Oh, and if you blow up the SQ pics, although you can’t see the astronaut’s feet, the image suggests he/she is free-flying towards the asteroid, not walking on it.]

      [edit: Just realised you probably meant the Deimos image. I think my point still applies, that might be an MMU, but I’m not sure.]

      “Lets face it, the rationale for an asteroid mission was that it wasn’t Bush’s idea.”

      I don’t know whether Obama or one of his advisors knew that any moon mission would degenerate to a “one trip wonder” when he said it’d been “done”, but if so, he was right. There’s plenty left to do on the moon, but that’s not what Constellation was going to do.

      “the Moon, something everyone can glance up at and see […] would be something people could understand and appreciate.”

      If people can’t understand an asteroid mission, they aren’t going to support any NASA program. If they can’t understand where the astronauts are without a big light in the sky, they also aren’t capable of understanding the difference between Apollo and a permanent lunar base.

      “It also just 2 days away – not months away, so if something happened to an astronaut, he could easily be returned to earth.”

      Do you realise you just argued against any BEO mission, ever? Until we can launch a full hospital ship, we can’t go beyond the moon? And why 2 days? Why not stay in LEO where the astronauts are just a few hours from evacuation. Indeed, why not stay in Florida?

      “This last thing NASA needs is a death-watch deep in space.”

      At some point, we’re going to kill more astronauts. Whether it’s on the ISS, or Soyuz, or Orion, or Dragon. Hell, a certain percentage of astronauts will die in traffic accidents on their way to work.

      The question is whether those astronauts who die on missions are going to be pioneers pushing the edge of the envelope, or… just commuters, going ’round and ’round…

      1. “
         Do you realise you just argued against any BEO mission, ever? Until we can launch a full hospital ship, we can’t go beyond the moon? And why 2 days? Why not stay in LEO where the astronauts are just a few hours from evacuation. Indeed, why not stay in Florida?”

         I thought about that when I wrote it and I agree with you that we have to get beyond this.  I too want to establish a permanent presence BEO, e.g., Mars.  I just think that once we get use to people living off-planet, it will become accepted that people will die where they lived.

      2. Agreed Paul. This reminds me of some of the liberals who believed that electing Obama would automatically bring an end to partisanism and racism.

         It’s so touchingly naive to think that by simply doing “Occupy Moon”, that (to quote Hugo Drax from Moonraker) “From their first day on Earth they will be able to look up and know that there is law and order in the heavens.”

         We need a better reason.

         Now, ostensibly why you want to go to a NEO is to learn if they are rubble piles or rigid, what they consist of, how you can move them, how to blow them up, threat assessment, and the operational ability for America to respond to a civilization ending threat (“America as planetary defender”). Go talk to Rusty Schweikert about it.Sounds like a better reason to me.

         Better than playing God.

         add:
         For the record, the point of going to an asteriod seems to be to practice fly to solar system objects. And to not wait for a lander vehicle, which seems to be last on the list of some peoples list of vehicles to be developed.

         It also was the most absurd part of CxP, poorest funded, longest pole in the tent.

         Since the first thing for a credible HSF lunar program is its lander strategy (not just a singular vehicle), many conclude that a lunar program is disingenuious, so the only strategy for using a SLS exploration vehicle otherwise … is visiting an asteriod.

4.  I don’t think a satisfactory case can be made as to why a manned asteroid mission is required at all before sending  humans directly into Mars orbit in order to explore and to exploit the moons of Mars for water, air, and fuel production– and to set things up for future landings on the Martian surface. 

   A NEO asteroid mission is actually  more dangerous than going to Mars  since it requires a year of traveling in interplanetary space before finally returning back to the relative safety of properly radiation shielded facilities located within cis-lunar space. Similar safe facilities, like  simple radiation shielded Bigelow space stations, could be  placed permanently into high Mars orbit by the SLS before astronauts are sent to Mars. And such Mars orbital facilities could be easily expanded and upgraded. Also simple rotating facilities with a pair of radiation shielded habitat modules at the end of a lengthy boom could also be deployed into Mars orbit by the SLS; such facilities would produce artificial gravity, allowing indefinite stays by astronauts in Mars orbit.

   Solar or nuclear powered water, air, and fuel manufacturing units could also be deployed on Deimos by the SLS before the first humans arrive which could also facilitate prolonged stays by human visitors.

   So astronauts could be on their way to a safe facility  in less than 269 days for a Mars journey and less than 200 days to safe facilities back in cis-lunar space on their way back from Mars– rather than 365 continuously dangerous days during an asteroid adventure.

   We would also learn a lot more about various NEO asteroids from several unmanned asteroid missions than from any single manned mission to a NEO asteroid– and probably at a substantially lower cost. 

   Marcel F. Williams

5.  Manifest destiny types like you wouldn’t get it.

   1. Manifest destiny types?  You have got to be kidding.

      1.  All too common. They think the stunt of having someone occupy a heavenly body in a tiny shack eating beans and rice, doing nothing else … will inspire kids on earth to want to go to the stars.

         It reminds me of Korea and Japan fighting over the
         Liancourt Rocks, where Korea puts a small group of people (usually a couple) to keep the rock occupied to deny it from the Japanese, given past empire claims. Not a good reason for either of them.

         1.  All too common. They think the stunt of having someone occupy a heavenly body in a tiny shack eating beans and rice, doing nothing else … will inspire kids on earth to want to go to the stars.

            While this may be what NASA thinks, no one that is here is thinking or proposing such a limited vision.

         2.  While this may be what NASA thinks, no one that is here is thinking or proposing such a limited vision.
            Some of the commenter’s here do have such a vision, and I’m not the only one who calls them on it.

            And it does not do what they think it does. Anymore than calling some rocks Dokdo and having a Korean couple “occupy” it, keep Japanese designs permanently away from them.

            What holds resolution of the planetary/moon conflict back is pragmatics on both sides. So remove the non pragmatic. Duh.

6. Living on something is just plain stupid, Doesn’t inspire anyone. And the taxpayers will shit bricks to pay for it, cause they’d not be getting squat for it.

   You’d kill what you’d claim to be saving.

   1. Living on something is just plain stupid, Doesn’t inspire anyone. And the taxpayers will shit bricks to pay for it, cause they’d not be getting squat for it.

      I find your vehement statements about this puzzling to say the least.  No one is talking about setting up a NSF station on the Moon or anywhere else for that matter (except the NEO mission maybe).  What we are talking about is the full on economic development of our nearest rock in space.   This includes manufacturing, resource extraction, and living area.

      The Moon is probably the second most valuable piece of real estate in the solar system for the next 100 years.

   2.  While this may be what NASA thinks, no one that is here is thinking or proposing such a limited vision.
      There are some that wish to force some kind of lunar “occupy”, in the obscure notion that we’ll quickly reach the tipping point for creating an ever increasing human population  outside of LEO. Which isn’t going to happen,  for a variety of reasons.

7. Asteroids I think are more suited for robots
   What you really mean is robots are to be used for anything to derive a science, engineering, or economic product.

   So yes,  any solar system target is more suited for robots. Leave it to the humans to find places to sit around eating beans and rice so they can “inspire”.

   Personally I find Curiosity and Opportunity more inspiring.

8. It’s long term survival of humanity,
   I agree. But your approach doesn’t work. And you undercut your own desires.

   You won’t get a single elected official to go for this, nor economic interests. Even Elon Musk gets ridiculed when he talks of becoming a two planet species. I hear them snark at him.

   NASA will never, can never, should never support occupying anything … without a explanation of what each of those $10,000 person minutes gives back. The policy makers would describe it as I describe it to you.

   And for them to lead, people will want to be led in this direction. They aren’t.

   So to get them onboard, you have to raise the stakes … gradually. ISS-EP, deep space exploration, lunar lander/rovers that are proved unmanned transitioning to manned.

   So your approach of throwing, “pushing” people first on anything … undercuts the necessary effects  of  the unmanned / infrastructure that “pull” them in.

9. NASA will never, can never, should never support occupying anything … without a explanation of what each of those $10,000 person minutes gives back. The policy makers would describe it as I describe it to you.

   (Note to Keith:this limited nesting is a pain)

   No, they would not.  I spend time lobbying and the staffers and congress people have been very interested in the economic as well as the security arguments that go beyond today’s rationale for space.

   You make good comments but these declarative statements like this are not only incorrect, they are a disservice to the argument about space.

10.  spend time lobbying and the staffers and congress people have been very interested in

    Have neither the time/interest or space in a comment to nuance to suit your ego.

    Politico’s will show interest in lots of things they’ll never fund – I only have words for things that will fund (meaning billions not thousands). Sorry if this is too coarse but I’m actually trying to reduce the noise you cleave to as signal.

11. You can also continue this discussion on the SpaceRef Forum which is better suited for long term discussions. http://srs.gs/17nZ

12. Sorry if this is too coarse but I’m actually trying to reduce the noise you cleave to as signal.

    Oh good lord. Politicos fund what people donate money to them and who gain their ear want them to fund.  That is the reality of the situation.  At the end of the day I don’t care what the politicos fund.  What we want are the economic tools to get out there and do this ourselves.

    I am currently at the Space 2012 satellite show here in DC and am watching the withering of an industry.  It is a slow withering but it is withering due to lack of investment in new ideas and technology.

13.  I don’t care what the politicos fund.
    So you’re a cynical bstrd. I can’t help with that.

    Enjoy your cynicism. Its why the industry is shriveling.

    Meanwhile, rationales for funding is exactly where I spend all of my time. And its cynicism like you express … that makes my job 10x harder.

    I’d just like crabs like you to stop using your claws to pull me back into the crab pot. So that I can find ways to get us all out of the crab pot.

    This is exactly how we got CASIS. Only weak initiatives sneak by this nonsense.

    Dennis, you’re your own worst enemy sometimes…

Comments are closed.