NASA Planning Mission To 40-Meter-Wide Asteroid

FudRucker points out a story from The Guardian about NASA's plans to visit 2000SG344, an asteroid 40 meters wide and weighing roughly 71 million kilograms. The manned mission would take three to six months, and it would make use of the Orion spacecraft, which will be replacing to retiring space shuttle fleet. "A report seen by the Guardian notes that by sending astronauts on a three-month journey to the hurtling asteroid, scientists believe they would learn more about the psychological effects of long-term missions and the risks of working in deep space, and it would allow astronauts to test kits to convert subsurface ice into drinking water, breathable oxygen and even hydrogen to top up rocket fuel. All of which would be invaluable before embarking on a two-year expedition to Mars. As well as giving space officials a taste of more complex missions, samples taken from the rock could help scientists understand more about the birth of the solar system and how best to defend against asteroids that veer into Earth's path."

Re:Paper studies do not a mission make

[l2718]

maybe *after* Mars is done

Actually, if you RTFA you'd see that NASA is floating this as one possible stepping-stone toward a Mars mission and as a potential use of the CEV. At 3-6 months the asteroid mission would be shorter than a trip to Mars, closer to Earth, and require simpler spacecraft (the CEV). It would serve as a test for the capabilities required for going to Mars (or even long-term to the moon), and for the abilities of the CEV. You are completely right that this is one idea they are kicking around on, and my guess is that the best description of their reasoning is:

We're going to build the CEV; officially Congress said we're supposed to be going the moon first and then to Mars. What could we do that would use the CEV, and could be sold to Congress as part of the politically-assigned goals?

Re:how many kilograms?

[afaik_ianal]

Interestingly, TFA incorrectly says the asteroid is 1.1 million tonnes. They seem to be confused with the energy of any potential impact, as measured in tons of TNT.

I don't know about you, but I get a little concerned when science reporters get stuff like that wrong.

Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit!

[Anonymous Coward]

15 kt is a very small nuke. Today's thermonuclear bombs have energies measured in megatons. So all nukes at this tiny piece of rock is actually an overkill.

Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit!

[kvezach]

To make it economical, you'd need something more exotic -- a mass drive throwing bits of asteroid, or a high performance solar-electric ion drive, for example.

Or the other Orion [wikipedia.org].

Re:Where will they get energy to crack hydrogen?

[clonan]

Well of COURSE you can't create energy from cracking water! You will NEVER be able to do that.

However, electrolysis is nice and easy and solar cells are often used in space....

Think BEFORE you type.

Re:unless USA starts using asteroids as nukes

[mhall119]

Yeah, but the delay between needing the strike, and being able to carry it out, will be measured in days or weeks. With that amount of delay, an enemy could launch their own nukes at our asteroids, and if not destroy them at least change their orbits enough to make them useless to us.

Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit!

[Gilmoure]

It's 40 m across. It's smaller in size than the space shuttle or the ISS. You'd need to be outside of most urban zones to even see it, assuming they put it in LEO. If it was set orbiting the moon, good luck spotting it with nekkid eye. As for gravitational effects on your cycles, I think a garbage truck down the street would have more effect on you.