Humans to a Near Earth Asteroid

namloc1980

NASA recently announced details of its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) to send a crewed Orion spacecraft to rendezvous with a piece of a captured Asteroid in lunar orbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6xJ_81TzBg

It will be the first manned flight of the SLS and Orion and will take place in the early 2020s. Not exactly as inspirational as Apollo, but with reduced budgets, NASA has to start somewhere.

Anyone excited for this, or is it a bit of an anti-climatic proposal?

Captain Chaos

I'll believe it when it happens. If they actually manage to do this mission by 2050 and I'm still alive I'll be amazed on both accounts. NASA has been 1 step forward and 10 back since the end of the cold war and shuttle program, and having no budget to work with.

nokia69

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'll believe it when it happens. If they actually manage to do this mission by 2050 and I'm still alive I'll be amazed on both accounts. NASA has been 1 step forward and 10 back since the end of the cold war and shuttle program, and having no budget to work with.

well it looks like they will have the rocket so the mission is at least possible if it gets funded

it looks to me that a Asteroid mission a return to the Moon and many other things will be possible by the 2020s

namloc1980

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'll believe it when it happens. If they actually manage to do this mission by 2050 and I'm still alive I'll be amazed on both accounts. NASA has been 1 step forward and 10 back since the end of the cold war and shuttle program, and having no budget to work with.

2050? Subject to continued funding the rocket will fly for the first time in 2018 so that will be there. Orion crew module is well along in development and had a test flight last December. The Service Module is being provided by ESA and is based on the successful Automated Transfer Vehicle. The Upper Stage, to send Orion beyond Earth orbit, is in development. As this would be a c. 2 week mission there is no requirement for a separate crew hab module as Orion can sustain a crew for c.3 weeks.

nokia69

namloc1980 wrote: »

2050? Subject to continued funding the rocket will fly for the first time in 2018 so that will be there. Orion crew module is well along in development and had a test flight last December. The Service Module is being provided by ESA and is based on the successful Automated Transfer Vehicle. The Upper Stage, to send Orion beyond Earth orbit, is in development. As this would be a c. 2 week mission there is no requirement for a separate crew hab module as Orion can sustain a crew for c.3 weeks.

3 weeks in the Orion would be pretty grim IMO

Pat Dunne

nokia69 wrote: »

3 weeks in the Orion would be pretty grim IMO

Where is your sense of adventure man!

nokia69

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Where is your sense of adventure man!

I would have no problem going alone, but spending 2 or 3 weeks in something the size of a car with 2 other people is a bit much

by the time the Apollo missions splashed down conditions on board were pretty bad, by now we should be able to do these things in comfort and style

using a Bigelow module or something like it is the way to go IMO

namloc1980

nokia69 wrote: »

I would have no problem going alone, but spending 2 or 3 weeks in something the size of a car with 2 other people is a bit much

by the time the Apollo missions splashed down conditions on board were pretty bad, by now we should be able to do these things in comfort and style

using a Bigelow module or something like it is the way to go IMO

One word : budget. Adding a hab module to a mission like this adds significantly to cost. First you need to acquire the module and then you're looking at another launch to get it into orbit so you're already looking for several hundred million dollars more to do that. You're also looking at a more powerful Upper Stage to boost the Orion and the added mass of a hab module to the Moon. And suddenly your budget is significantly higher than what is available and politicians who control the purse strings start to get nervous.

The Orion is 50% bigger than the Apollo CM so it's more than adequate for a 2 week mission for 2/3 people.

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

One word : budget. Adding a hab module to a mission like this adds significantly to cost. First you need to acquire the module and then you're looking at another launch to get it into orbit so you're already looking for several hundred million dollars more to do that. You're also looking at a more powerful Upper Stage to boost the Orion and the added mass of a hab module to the Moon. And suddenly your budget is significantly higher than what is available and politicians who control the purse strings start to get nervous.

The Orion is 50% bigger than the Apollo CM so it's more than adequate for a 2 week mission for 2/3 people.

Or do what they do with Soyuz with modular orbital and descent modules only one of which needs heat shields etc.
more space from less weight , if you use both modules you've 8m3 which is pretty close to Orion's 9m3.

Thargor

Whats the point? What do you expect to find on an asteroid that needs human input? Asteroids definitely need investigation but theres nothing stopping robots from doing all the drilling and sampling.

nokia69

Thargor wrote: »

Whats the point? What do you expect to find on an asteroid that needs human input? Asteroids definitely need investigation but theres nothing stopping robots from doing all the drilling and sampling.

build experience and test technology and hardware for other manned missions beyond LEO

Capt'n Midnight

Thargor wrote: »

Whats the point? What do you expect to find on an asteroid that needs human input? Asteroids definitely need investigation but theres nothing stopping robots from doing all the drilling and sampling.

And if it's orbiting the earth / moon then sample return would be a cinch.

nokia69 wrote: »

build experience and test technology and hardware for other manned missions beyond LEO

TBH I'd be more interested in knowing about the asteroid capture technology.

It's been over 40 years since we proved we could "do the other things," and that was with 1960's technology. These days the Indians have sent stuff to Mars and the Chinese landed a rover on the moon. Nowadays you can build a cubesat and have it launched into orbit for the price of a car.

Unfortunately unless there is a big mission there's no point in doing the testing for it. Hard won skills being lost because they weren't used yet again. A big mission would be easier to sell to the public.


Asteroids are potentially worth a lot of money. Dropping a small one on Greenland or the middle of the Sahara could produce a lot of stuff for show and tell.

namloc1980

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Or do what they do with Soyuz with modular orbital and descent modules only one of which needs heat shields etc.
more space from less weight , if you use both modules you've 8m3 which is pretty close to Orion's 9m3.

I don't see how two small modules is better than a single large module bigger than the two small ones combined. In addition the Orion is now designed and the first flight models are being built. It would be crazy to dump it now and start from scratch.

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

I don't see how two small modules is better than a single large module bigger than the two small ones combined. In addition the Orion is now designed and the first flight models are being built. It would be crazy to dump it now and start from scratch.

It's too late to change now, but 40 years later the Apollo replacement is pretty close to Apollo. In some cases a redesign from the ground up can be good. But there's a lot to be said for taking an old design and seeing what would happen with new materials.

The service module is a rebadged ATV so I'm not going to get too excited about proving proven technology.

Space shuttle external tanks went from 35 tonnes to 26.5 tonnes, pretty much a case of old design, new materials.

This unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Instrument_Unit would be a lot lighter today , even if built to the same specifications, with off the shelf technology



BTW here's a list of Soyuz replacements , that it outlived.
http://jalopnik.com/5972874/these-are-all-the-spaceships-designed-to-replace-the-soyuz/

Don't get me wrong Soyuz is cramped and landings are like a car crash, its only real advantages are that it's cheap and reliable and has a few handy traits from it's origins in the Soviet moon program. Despite it's many faults no one has built a better one for similar money.

Reusable tech has advantages, but unless you have a high enough volume you are probably better off using cheaper one use stuff. You can make radical changes to reusable tech or if you do the costs of remanufacturing are comparable to manufacturing costs of one use tech.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And if it's orbiting the earth / moon then sample return would be a cinch.

TBH I'd be more interested in knowing about the asteroid capture technology.

It's been over 40 years since we proved we could "do the other things," and that was with 1960's technology. These days the Indians have sent stuff to Mars and the Chinese landed a rover on the moon. Nowadays you can build a cubesat and have it launched into orbit for the price of a car.

Unfortunately unless there is a big mission there's no point in doing the testing for it. Hard won skills being lost because they weren't used yet again. A big mission would be easier to sell to the public.


Asteroids are potentially worth a lot of money. Dropping a small one on Greenland or the middle of the Sahara could produce a lot of stuff for show and tell.

I think a mission to an asteroid is a big mission, getting samples from an asteroid before it gets burned up by the earths atmosphere is worth doing IMO, of course I do realize that it could be done cheaper than the way NASA does it

yeah the capture technology is interesting, I assume they tie on to the asteroid in deep space and use some form of solar electric propulsion to move it into a Moon orbit

easier said than done

namloc1980

nokia69 wrote: »

I think a mission to an asteroid is a big mission, getting samples from an asteroid before it gets burned up by the earths atmosphere is worth doing IMO, of course I do realize that it could be done cheaper than the way NASA does it

yeah the capture technology is interesting, I assume they tie on to the asteroid in deep space and use some form of solar electric propulsion to move it into a Moon orbit

easier said than done

It's not an asteroid capture as such. It's removing a boulder from an asteroid. Looks technically difficult.

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

build experience and test technology and hardware for other manned missions beyond LEO

Today's XKCD