PDA

View Full Version : Obama's asteroid goal is riskier than moon


Aloysius
04-25-2010, 02:16 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36604325/ns/technology_and_science-space/


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Landing a man on the moon was a towering achievement. Now the president has given NASA an even harder job, one with a certain Hollywood quality: sending astronauts to an asteroid, a giant speeding rock, just 15 years from now.

Space experts say such a voyage could take several months longer than a journey to the moon and entail far greater dangers.

"It is really the hardest thing we can do," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Going to an asteroid could provide vital training for an eventual mission to Mars. It might help unlock the secrets of how our solar system formed. And it could give mankind the know-how to do something that has been accomplished only in the movies by a few square-jawed, squinty-eyed heroes: saving the Earth from a collision with a killer asteroid.

"You could be saving humankind. That's worthy, isn't it?" said Bill Nye, TV's Science Guy and vice president of the Planetary Society.

President Barack Obama outlined NASA's new path during a visit to the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday.

"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space," he said. "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history."

On the day the president announced the goal, a NASA task force of scientists, engineers and ex-astronauts was meeting in Boston to work on a plan to protect Earth from a cataclysmic collision with an asteroid or a comet.

NASA has tracked nearly 7,000 near-Earth objects that are bigger than several feet across. Of those, 1,111 are "potentially hazardous asteroids." Objects bigger than two-thirds of a mile are major killers and hit Earth every several hundred thousand years. Scientists believe it was a 6-mile-wide asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Landing on an asteroid and giving it a well-timed nudge "would demonstrate once and for all that we're smarter than the dinosaurs and can avoid what they didn't," said White House science adviser John Holdren.

Experts don't have a particular asteroid in mind for the deep-space voyage, but there are a few dozen top candidates, most of which pass within about 5 million miles of Earth. That is 20 times more distant than the moon, which is about 239,000 miles from Earth on average.

Most of the top asteroid candidates are less than a quarter-mile across. The moon is about 2,160 miles in diameter.

Going to an asteroid could provide clues about the solar system's formation, because asteroids are essentially fossils from 4.6 billion years ago, when planets first formed, said Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near Earth Object program at the Jet Propulsion Lab.

And an asteroid mission would be a Mars training ground, given the distance and alien locale.

"If humans can't make it to near-Earth objects, they can't make it to Mars," said MIT astronautics professor Ed Crawley.

Also, asteroids contain such substances as hydrogen, carbon, iron and platinum, which could be used by astronauts to make fuel and equipment — skills that would also be necessary on a visit to Mars.

While Apollo 11 took eight days to go to the moon and back in 1969, a typical round-trip mission to a near-Earth asteroid would last about 200 days, Crawley said. That would demand new propulsion and life-support technology. And it would be riskier. Aborting a mission in an emergency would still leave people stuck in space for several weeks.

The space agency may need to develop special living quarters, radiation shields or other new technology to allow astronauts to live in deep space so long, said NASA chief technology officer Bobby Braun.

Even though an asteroid would be farther than the moon, the voyage would use less fuel and be cheaper because an asteroid has no gravity. The rocket that carries the astronauts home would not have to expend fuel to escape the asteroid's pull.

On the other hand, because of the lack of gravity, a spaceship could not safely land on an asteroid; it would bounce off the surface. Instead, it would have to hover next to the asteroid, and the astronauts would have to spacewalk down to the ground, Yeomans said.

Once there, they would need some combination of jet packs, spikes or nets to enable them to walk without skittering off the asteroid and floating away, he said.

"You would need some way to hold yourself down," Yeomans said. "You'd launch yourself into space every time you took a step."

Just being there could be extremely disorienting, said planetary scientist Tom Jones, co-chairman of the NASA task force on protecting Earth from dangerous objects. The rock would be so small that the sun would spin across the sky and the horizon would only be a few yards long. At 5 million miles away, the Earth would look like a mere BB in the sky.
"It's going to be a strange alien environment being on an asteroid," Jones said.

But Jones, a former astronaut, said that wouldn't stop astronauts from angling to be a part of such a mission: "You'll have plenty of people excited about exploring an ancient and alien world."

So what do you prefer ? The moon or an asteroid ?
Now, putting an asteroid on Lagrange point would be neat.

Ancalagon
04-25-2010, 06:00 PM
I think it's a great idea. Now, reaching a particular asteroid isn't that important - but being able to reach asteroids "in general" is a huge achievement. It could also be a good test of ion propulsion.

Schizm
04-25-2010, 06:14 PM
I think it's a great idea. Now, reaching a particular asteroid isn't that important - but being able to reach asteroids "in general" is a huge achievement. It could also be a good test of ion propulsion.

MmmHmm. I think it's potentially more important than actually landing on mars, for the long term exploration of space.

Ancalagon
04-25-2010, 11:36 PM
MmmHmm. I think it's potentially more important than actually landing on mars, for the long term exploration of space.

The neat thing about asteroids, is that we can *pick* the one we want. Mars is where Mars is. You can't change that. Mars is made of what it's made. With an asteroid, you can pick one with an advantageous location and composition....

I do fear the military applications though. It could be that someone could "aim" an asteroid well enough to hit a country - picking one big enough to do damage, but not big enough to damage the planet as a whole...

Schizm
04-25-2010, 11:39 PM
I do fear the military applications though. It could be that someone could "aim" an asteroid well enough to hit a country - picking one big enough to do damage, but not big enough to damage the planet as a whole...

Everything has a military application. Everything. If we feared how the military might use something all the time, we would be paralyzed for new technologies.

The Winslow
04-26-2010, 02:50 AM
I do fear the military applications though. It could be that someone could "aim" an asteroid well enough to hit a country - picking one big enough to do damage, but not big enough to damage the planet as a whole...
I think it would be drastically more expensive than a good old nuke or massive fuel-air explosive bomb.

And less funny than dropping a junk satellite. (Best part of Red Alert 3's soviet campaign.)

Name Lips
04-26-2010, 10:56 AM
What we really need is a craft capable of taking off, exploring the solar system under human command, achieving objectives, and returning to earth (perhaps with a payload or cargo).

As a regular, reliable, normal thing.

That's what I hope this vision achieves. That would be spectacular. The foundations for an actual space fleet of some kind, a subculture of thousands (instead of dozens) of people who fly and live on them.

Kilmore
04-27-2010, 06:52 PM
.

Northcott
04-27-2010, 11:08 PM
I was surprised when I read about this. I thought that the White House was scrapping initiative in the space program, and putting NASA on the backburner. This sounds like something with serious vision behind it, and a remarkable number of practical applications... not the least of which is sending a group of hotshot oil rig workers up into the great black yonder to save our asses when the shit hits the fan.

Ancalagon
04-27-2010, 11:52 PM
I was surprised when I read about this. I thought that the White House was scrapping initiative in the space program, and putting NASA on the backburner.

This is how the Republicans were trying to spin it...

AZRogue
05-04-2010, 02:47 PM
I'd rather we set up a real, extensive station on the moon; drill down into the rock, carve out some huge complexes, slap a lid on the whole thing and pressurize with atmosphere. Damn it!

But going to an asteroid is also cool as Hell, and would cause us to come up with all sorts of new innovations and technological advances. If I can't get my moon base (Damn it!) I will at least be partially appeased by going to an asteroid.

Northcott
05-04-2010, 06:59 PM
Dude... I keep telling you: they're not going to let us set up the Moon or Mars as libertarian colonies. Won't happen.


Which is why we need to live long enough to become quasi-immortal cyborgs.

AZRogue
05-04-2010, 08:34 PM
Dude... I keep telling you: they're not going to let us set up the Moon or Mars as libertarian colonies. Won't happen.

Fuckers! :mad:

Which is why we need to live long enough to become quasi-immortal cyborgs.No doubt, I just wanted a fucking Moon Base, too. Is that really too much to ask? To be a quasi-immortal cyborg with a friggin' MOON BASE?!?

Name Lips
05-04-2010, 08:35 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36942268/ns/technology_and_science-space/


Plasma rocket may shorten space voyages
Rocket could take astronauts to Mars in little more than a month

An innovative plasma rocket being built as a spare for one heading to the International Space Station may have a space mission of its own: visiting an asteroid.

Equipped with an electric propulsion system, the rocket, known as Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR), is being developed to one day transport astronauts to Mars in 39 to 45 days — a fraction of the six to nine months the trip would take with conventional chemical rockets. Shorter travel time greatly reduces astronauts' exposure to potentially deadly cosmic and solar radiation, currently a show-stopper for human missions to Mars.

Setting sail for an asteroid would be a powerful demonstration of VASIMR technology, which uses radio waves to ionize propellant — such as argon, xenon or hydrogen — and heat the resulting plasma to temperatures 20 times hotter than the surface of the sun. In place of metal nozzles to control the direction of the exhaust, VASIMR uses magnetic fields.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"All of a sudden, the future is here," said VASIMR inventor and physicist Franklin Chang-Diaz, a seven-time shuttle flier who left NASA in 2005 to start a company and work full time developing the rocket.

Chang Diaz's Houston-based Ad Astra Rocket Co., which has raised millions of dollars from private investors, reached a significant milestone last year when it successfully operated a demonstrator VASIMR at full power in a vacuum chamber.

"The engine is actually firing right now," Chang-Diaz told Discovery News. "We have lots of hurdles and challenges; we have lots of work to do. But if you look at what has happened in the last five years since we left NASA, it's been amazing."

Ad Astra plans to launch its flight version VASIMR to the space station in 2014. As a backup, Chang-Diaz intends to manufacture two engines in case a launch accident or other major problem prevents the first from reaching the outpost.

Once the engine is safely installed outside the station, the spare could be tapped for a new mission — that did not require investment by NASA.

"I had this idea that maybe there's a way we can use this backup engine that he's already building," said Rob Kelso, a former shuttle flight director at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston now working to build innovative partnerships between NASA and commercial firms.

While the space station's VASIMR can draw power from the outpost, a free-flying engine will need its own source. As part of the proposed asteroid mission, NASA and Ad Astra would team with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to use its super-efficient, 200-kilowatt solar array currently under development.

Once the rocket reached its target asteroid, the power would be available to operate science equipment and other gear.

"You could do an extraordinary mission," Chang-Diaz said. "You don't need the power system for the rocket. Once you're there, you turn off the engine and you have 200 kilowatts to do anything you want to do. You can do all kinds of unheard of things with that level of power."

In addition to radar mapping and surveys, the mission also could pick up a sample from the asteroid and return it to Earth. Scientists are interested in learning more about where asteroids came from, how they formed and whether they carry the ingredients for life. On a practical level, learning how asteroids are structured would be useful in case one is discovered to be on a collision course with Earth and needs to be moved.

The mission also fits with the new direction President Barack Obama has outlined for NASA. Obama wants to cancel the return-to-the-moon program NASA had been developing and instead spend money on producing and testing new technologies for deep space exploration. During a speech at Kennedy Space Center earlier this month, Obama specifically called for a human mission to an asteroid by 2025.

The VASIMR asteroid mission is among several proposals currently being assessed by a NASA study team. If selected, the mission could fly somewhere around 2017, Kelso said.

Schizm
05-05-2010, 12:05 AM
wait, it's using magnetic fields as a control surface? and it runs off hydrogen?

....

I have one word to say here: Ramscoops, baby!

Name Lips
05-05-2010, 10:30 AM
wait, it's using magnetic fields as a control surface? and it runs off hydrogen?

....

I have one word to say here: Ramscoops, baby!

:D

I thought you'd like it.

I'd say we're charging rapidly into the future... but hell, I think sometime when we weren't looking we passed into it.

We have all the technology we need. In fact, we've had it for a while. Even these sorts of awesome advances are more like "upgrades" to solutions we've already found. We just lack the political motivation.

Northcott
05-05-2010, 10:56 AM
No doubt, I just wanted a fucking Moon Base, too. Is that really too much to ask? To be a quasi-immortal cyborg with a friggin' MOON BASE?!?

Some day, man. Some day. And we'll have fucking SPACE GUNS, too.


Also: magnetic field-controlled plasma rockets? Fuck yeah! I read that, and I think "space hotrod", baby! Pimped out with classic flames down the side. Maybe even just done as a 'chopper'. Yeaaaaaaah... space biker.

Schizm
05-05-2010, 08:13 PM
:D

I thought you'd like it.

I'd say we're charging rapidly into the future... but hell, I think sometime when we weren't looking we passed into it.

We have all the technology we need. In fact, we've had it for a while. Even these sorts of awesome advances are more like "upgrades" to solutions we've already found. We just lack the political motivation.

So, at this point we're really, really close to almost everything we need for not only interplanetary, but interstellar travel.

the big questions: what are the power requirements for this sucker? how could we power it long term and still have enough to run life support, etc...

Speaking of life support, one of the major issues is cosmic radiation. if we've got the ability to direct the exhaust of this kind of engine with magnetic fields, we should be able to use some similar technology to deflect a rather large amount of cosmic radiation, right? Power will, of course, be an issue... but it always is, right?

Hmm. we really, really need to revisit the idea of nuclear reactors in space.

Aloysius
05-06-2010, 09:38 AM
So, at this point we're really, really close to almost everything we need for not only interplanetary, but interstellar travel.

the big questions: what are the power requirements for this sucker? how could we power it long term and still have enough to run life support, etc...

Speaking of life support, one of the major issues is cosmic radiation. if we've got the ability to direct the exhaust of this kind of engine with magnetic fields, we should be able to use some similar technology to deflect a rather large amount of cosmic radiation, right? Power will, of course, be an issue... but it always is, right?

Hmm. we really, really need to revisit the idea of nuclear reactors in space.
Every Cilization player will explain you that fusion reactor are the way to go.

Schizm
05-06-2010, 02:14 PM
Every Cilization player will explain you that fusion reactor are the way to go.

yes, and every civ player has the magical button that makes one of those happen. Unfortunatly, in the real world, till some very bright soul manages to figure out how to make a hot fusion reactor that works continuously without leaving a shitload of radiation or producing a fireball several miles across, we're stuck with good ole fission.

DarwinOfMind
05-06-2010, 06:00 PM
I was trying to write a scifi setting and keep it super realistic so I was looking into He3 fusion, crap they don't mention how little of it there is on the moon, how fucking radioactive it is to make it here on earth, How you've gotta be 3 times as hot to use he3.

how fucking radioactive fusion without he3 is.

we're screwed...