Proposed Hab Module For Asteroid Redirect Mission Could Support a Lunar Return 55
MarkWhittington writes Space News reported on Wednesday that NASA is mulling a hab module as part of the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The inclusion of the hab module would extend the mission from 28 days to as long as 60 days. The module would provide enough consumables such as food, water, and oxygen and other support to sustain the crew of astronauts for weeks while examining a small asteroid in orbit around the moon. The module might also support a return to the lunar surface, given certain modifications.
Why send humans now (Score:1)
Considering that it's likely that in a few decades humanity will transition to machine bodies (or at least much more resilient organic bodies), I'd be fine with limiting space exploration for the time being to probes and rovers where one doesn't have to waste so much payload and resources on water, food and oxygen.
Yes, I support space exploration. However, I think the priority for now, our generation's Apollo moment, should be earthbound research into AI and neuroscience. Let's expand through the solar syst
Re: (Score:3)
It's always good to know EMPs could wipe out our species.
Re:EMP full effects are unknown (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, after following artificial intelligence for some 5 decades now, I suspect he or she is highly likely to sound more uninformed in a few decades. Very few things are as wince-inducing as reading 3-decade old AI predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
How about genetic engineering to give future humans photosynthesis abilities [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why send humans now (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Have to spend 99.9% of your time in a _low_ energy coma.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Just remember to give us a acre or so of surface area while you're at it.
Re: (Score:3)
I like human exploration, but I tend to the opposite motivation from a lot of space fans. I don't want us to go out there because we have really screwed Earth up and simply have to find some other place and try again. That seems like a lousy motivation. The idea that we could screw Earth up enough that it would be easier to terraform Mars or something should be very disturbing and frightening to us, a strong motivator to fix what we are doing wrong right here instead of cut and run.
Re: (Score:3)
I think great reasons for manned space exploration have little to do with space exploration. It provides a sense of wonder and imagination that transcends all of humanity and it's earthly divisions. And manned space travel is human centric, so we end up learning a lot about humans that's valuable to living here, not just space travel. I think it also generates a ton of useful engineering -- materials, systems, technologies -- that also have use here and now.
Arguing its less good science or not practical
Well said! (Score:3)
swb's comment is insightful too. The best reason to go into space is because we are happy on Earth and want to grow that happiness further.
That said, it is not unreasonable to want a distributed population for reasons of backup and resiliency, as well as reasons for new perspectives/exploration/innovation. Humans run simulations to learn things, and space habitats may develop a variety of approaches to things that are new and useful.
Also, as human technological power grows, the Earth becomes ever smaller an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's bad form at /. to RTFA, but it would sure make some comments less painful to read.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are aware of such a reason feel free to offer it up.
Re: (Score:3)
There's still some space for science up there. The properly analyzed samples come from only a small number of sites, and all from the surface - there's almost nothing known about what lies beneath. A lot could be learned by proper surveying. Drill for deeper samples, lay down seismic instruments. All of no practical benefit - the moon is unlikely to have any minerals rich enough in expensive elements to justify mining - but there is still science to be done. It'd also make a good observatory - it's not prac
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't need humans for that (enormously complex) undertaking we don't need to send humans to the moon for the sake of taking core samples.
Re: (Score:2)
The properly analyzed samples come from only a small number of sites, and all from the surface - there's almost nothing known about what lies beneath.
Uh...there were core samples taken to about 3 meters (a little less than 10 feet) below the surface on Apollos 15, 16, and 17 using a drill, and all of the Apollo missions took samples down to about 70 centimeters (27 inches).
Re: (Score:3)
We don't need such a module, because we don't need, or even want humans to go back to the Moon.
Wait - who is this "we" you keep referring to [slashdot.org]? Okay, he was speaking of Mars, but still...
Re:Horse and Cart (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular su
Re: (Score:2)
Make it profitable, and they will go. How do you think North America got populated* ?
*Well, there is making it a prison planet, and sending everyone who gets a felony. I am sure some would love doing that, as long as they didn't have to go.
Re: (Score:1)
Make it profitable, and they will go.
I see. And is there a switch or checkbox or something that we click to make this venture profitable? I'm no expert, but I understand that the general nature of profitable ventures is that produce something that has implicit value to another party, who then exchange for something of intrinsic or implied value.
How do you think North America got populated* ?
Well, at the time there was a land bridge with Asia and humans followed the game from one continent to the other. By all reports, Mars is lacking in game - large or small. And there is also the land br
Re: (Score:2)
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular support. It doesn't. Nobody (except maybe the richest of the rich) can afford to fund their own expedition. These means that other potential astronauts need to rely on a support base to fund them. But where is this support base? Let's say you want to send 5 people. Round it off to 5 Billion. This means your mission needs to find 5 million people prepared to donate $1000 to send someone else to the moon.
15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)
Also relevant, Artemis's 2 main space craft (the land
Re: (Score:2)
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular support. It doesn't. Nobody (except maybe the richest of the rich) can afford to fund their own expedition. These means that other potential astronauts need to rely on a support base to fund them. But where is this support base? Let's say you want to send 5 people. Round it off to 5 Billion. This means your mission needs to find 5 million people prepared to donate $1000 to send someone else to the moon.
15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)
This is exactly what I was referring to. I'd never heard of the Artemis Project until you mentioned it. I suspect that if go out onto the street and asked 10 people about the artemis project, none of them will have heard of it either. The project failed. You can't sell advertising and media rights if no-one has heard of your project or is interested in it. The people behind that project imagined that their enthusiasm for it was infectious. They imagined that they could build a habitat on the moon, and peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Um, how many humans can survive on the moon, currently?
Well, numerically speaking about the same number as the number of macaques, or elephants, or quolls.
Should we send a macaque, or bunch of macaques instead? Is there a reason to send humans that doesn't apply equally to quolls, echidnas, or rosellas?
Maybe putting the Hab on the moon would show something significant, like ones next breath?
I think we have a pretty good grasp on how the human physiology would react in a vacuum. No need to send humans to the moon to find out,.
Re: (Score:2)
Extend the mission for longer than 28 days (Score:2)
I guess they want to avoid any "28 days later" scenarios.
not a need...a want (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
" thousands of tourists go to Antarctica. money to burn."
Thousands of tourists used to get sightseeing flights to Antarctica back in the late 70's
Air New Zealand stopped that when one of the DC10s hit Mt Erebus
Phobos is the real goal (Score:3)
The real goal of the habitat is the Martian moon, Phobos [usra.edu], which is reachable for nearly the same expenditure of energy as the high retrograde lunar orbit planned for ARM. It would take a good deal longer, though, thus the need for a habitat.
If you think of ARM as a training wheels dry run for Phobos, you would not be far off.
Re: (Score:1)
simply need a habitat module for habitation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
as Orion has no toilet compartment [...]
Neither did the USS Enterprise and that was a five year mission!
Re: (Score:2)
How? (Score:1)
Are we going to capture the rock?
Seems like a no-brainer. (Score:1)
I mean, at minimum, we should use the Soyuz approach: a "space-habitation" module and an "Earth return" module. Minimize the size of the Earth return module, and you get more room for what is needed only in space. But launching a second, larger space habitation module would be just as good. Hell, use a Dragon v2 and a Bigelow BEAM. Both can launch on a single Falcon 9 rocket. (Although that wouldn't accommodate beyond-Earth-orbit fuel.)
We could do better with what NASA already has (Score:1)
If only certain key congress members would stop dictating NASA design and build a big ass rocket that will be too expensive to use and really not needed [thespacereview.com], the resources NASA already has could go into Nautilus-X [wikipedia.org].
Oink, oink (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs were "Buck Rogers"* (or "Captain Kirk" or whomever your favorite space hero is).
We don't have any insert-your-favorite-space-hero, now. At least not one who can broadly inspire the support those 3 programs had. And I don't foresee one any time soon.
There is no vision.
It's not about humans vs robots. Yes, you can do a lot of real science for less money using robots. But it's not just about science. It's also about humans being humans. Of course, just putting humans out