NASA Planning Mission To 40-Meter-Wide Asteroid 205
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."
Sounds like good practice for an inbound bogey (Score:1, Interesting)
Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:2, Interesting)
But what I would really like is for someone to work out roughly how much energy this would take.
More or less than all nukes on earth, for example?
Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, when NASA has a huge group of talented experts and tons of cash, they can do real science instead of worrying every day about whether the budget will get slashed before they can complete the current round of experiments.
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's got 1.37 km/s hyperbolic excess velocity, and on an orbit that damn near intersects ours. That means it takes a little more than 1370 m/s of delta-v to perform the capture. At 7.1E7 kg, that's about 6.6E13 joules -- approximately 15kt TNT equivalent worth of energy.
Assuming a high performance LOX/Methane engine, it would need about 34kt of propellant (rockets are inefficient for delta-v low relative to exhaust velocity). Note that this is a significant proportion of the asteroid mass. 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.
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:4, Interesting)
The energy of any possible collision with Earth is "1.1 million tons of TNT", which is about 4.6 petajoules. I expect the energy required to pull it into orbit would be in that order of magnitude, as you'd basically be trying to slow the thing down as it got near us.
I'm not sure how you many nukes it would take to apply that much kinetic energy to an object in space, but the biggest nukes can release in the order of 2 petajoules of heat.
I'm not sure that I'd want an object that size -- without any means of correcting its orbit -- hovering over my house though.
Re:Paper studies do not a mission make (Score:5, Interesting)
Their new capsule design is basically Apollo again so the old plans are on the table. An asteroid mission is a stepping stone to missions to the planets. It is shorter, but interesting all the same.
The asteroids are a likely resource for Earth. Planets are only of use to us for colonisation or science. There is no way to export from Mars to Earth for example, but water could be exported from asteroids to the moon.
This is a great idea. I can't wait to watch.
Wrong Orion (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wrong Orion (Score:1, Interesting)
StanisÅaw Ulam realized that nuclear explosions could not yet be realistically contained in a combustion chamber.
Instead, the Orion would have worked by dropping fission or thermonuclear explosives out the rear of a vehicle, detonating them 200 feet (60 m) out, and catching the blast with a thick steel or aluminum pusher plate.
Large multi-story high shock absorbers (pneumatic springs) were to have absorbed the impulse from the plasma wave as it hit the pusher plate, spreading the millisecond shock wave over several seconds and thus giving an acceptable ride.
Re:What about the War? (Score:4, Interesting)
Asteroid visits are a wonderful step towards the industrial use of space, far more effective and useful than a Mars mission. Do the Mars mission after we have a working space station that can build things, and a reliable supply line to it.
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Then each time it comes round, regular trips from the Earth could stock it with food, water and air, as well as building long-term habitation. It would then become a 'Mars Bus', able to shift lots of material, as well as all the Mars tourists/colonists who will want to go.
And I haven't even patented this concept. Perhaps it's because I am from the UK and not American?
Solar Flare shelter? (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is reminiscent of an Arthur C. Clarke story about a trip to Icarus.
On a more sinister note, while the delta-V for CAPTURE of this body around earth might be prohibitive using todays technology, what about for IMPACT? Not the U.S. would want to do such an obvious war provoking act but wondering if it could be done with just chemical propellants. Of course it depends on how far in advance you have to alter the course, orbital parameters etc.
Now if we were really good at orbital mechanics we could possibly have it skim the atmosphere to lose some delta-v for capture. Don't think anyone's gonna try that though.
I wonder ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Planned mission != actual mission (Score:5, Interesting)
This is proposed back in 1990, and was deemed to be a viable plan for going forward with technology we had at that time. As with all missions, we don't know the SPECIFICS (as in, we don't have blueprints of the craft to take us), but if we had those we'd probably already be on the way there now. There are enough sound plans out there that I'm sure if funding were approved for the mission, we'd be able to do it. The problem though, is not in solving problems, getting a clear roadmap, or whatnot. The problem is in getting the government to simply lay down the funding so we can go.
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
They could have sent thousands of robots.
We've got two rovers operating on Mars for years for a fraction of the price it costs to send one human to the IIS in low Earth orbit. There's no question the robots get you more science for your buck, all the humans cling to is that they are better PR, but I wonder if that's true anymore? Here's a test: Without looking it up, think of the names of those rovers on Mars. Now think of the names of the current ISS inhabitants. You're paying hundreds of times as much for every day the ISS inhabitant is there.
Re:Planned mission != actual mission (Score:3, Interesting)
That nasa is even asking for plans made my whole day. Sam Gunn would be proud.
Re:Land, schmand. Pull it into orbit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Make that 40 meters You probably wouldn't be able to see it without a telescope. Hell, I think ISS is bigger than that.