>>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-10 16:17:40

.

There are many small, mid and big asteroids that have their elliptical orbits so close to Earth, that, while (in my opinion) are not so interesting to send (very risky) manned mission, are VERY interesting as "natural deep space probes" since they can fly in the Solar System without any "propellent" nor "engine", as explained in my latest article "Asteroids as Deep Space Probes":

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/013asteroids.html

.

cIclops · 2007-11-11 05:46:06

The energy needed to reach such an object is the same as entering its orbit. No energy is saved by riding on the object.

Manned missions to explore these objects would be fantastic, there are many of them all the way out to Mars and beyond. They are stepping stones, they have resources!

Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 06:32:30

The energy needed to reach such an object is the same as entering its orbit. No energy is saved by riding on the object.
Manned missions to explore these objects would be fantastic, there are many of them all the way out to Mars and beyond. They are stepping stones, they have resources!

the payload falls while the distance increase... the same rocket can carry 10 mT to LEO or 5 mT to GEO or 2 mT to the Moon or a few hundreds kg. to Mars

if we send a payload to an asteroid that runs at 500,000 km. from earth, it needs an amount of propellent similar to a Moon travel, NOT for a Jupiter travel

send large payloads to Jupiter, Saturn, etc. was possible thanks to the gravitational "slingshot" technique that allows to save the large amount of propellent of a direct launch

a manned mission to NEO is an exciting adventure but doesn't worth the price and the risk, since we can take asteroids' samples with robotic probes

.

Terraformer · 2007-11-11 06:55:02

But we can't return said asteroid samples. Or maybe that's just the Japanese.

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 07:01:13

But we can't return said asteroid samples.

why not, it only needs that probes will be designed for the task

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 07:01:55

.

someday (this century or the next) when the Solar System will be colonized, the asteroids will be used as "interplanetary trains"

big payload in the range of thousands tons will be joined to small asteroids running a few millions km. from earth (using a low amount of propellent if sent from earth or lower if sent from moon factories) then, that payload will travel at zero costs the billion km. between earth and jupiter and, while it will be near it, will release the payload to fly and land on a colonized moon of jupiter (or saturn)

to-day it's sci-fi, to-morrow it will be a reality

.

cIclops · 2007-11-11 07:10:35

Manned missions to NEOs will be possible quite soon. An Orion plus an airlock/propulsion module can take a crew of 3 to a local NEO to explore and intelligently collect samples in a 120 day mission there and back. This is not SF, this will be fact.

Please explain how it is cheaper for a payload to rendezvous with a NEO (which won't be in an optimal orbit) than to travel directly to its destination.

Terraformer · 2007-11-11 07:21:49

why not, it only needs that probes will be designed for the task

The Japanese one was designed for the task and failed.

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 07:38:11

The Japanese one was designed for the task and failed.

half Mars probes have failed to hit the target, but it's not a good reason to stop send probes

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 07:49:15

Manned missions to NEOs will be possible quite soon. An Orion plus an airlock/propulsion module can take a crew of 3 to a local NEO to explore and intelligently collect samples in a 120 day mission there and back. This is not SF, this will be fact.

never said its impossible, just said it's too risky, also, an "intelligent collect" could be remote controlled since there is no big radio delays like those with Mars rovers (and don't forget the PRICE of a manned mission vs. a robotic one)

Please explain how it is cheaper for a payload to rendezvous with a NEO (which won't be in an optimal orbit) than to travel directly to its destination.

clearly, send a probe to a NEO needs a little more propellent than send it to the moon, but the difference between a NEO target and (e.g.) jupiter is of THREE orders of magnitude (million km. vs. billion km.) so they can't need the same amount of propellent

after all, YOU give the answer to this question in your post when talk of "An Orion plus an airlock/propulsion module can take a crew of 3 to a local NEO to explore and intelligently collect samples in a 120 day mission there and back." ...so, it's not so complex to reach, rendezvous, explore and come back from an asteroid... ...also, a probe is SMALLER than Orion and doesn't need the propellent to come back to earth...

.

Terraformer · 2007-11-11 08:06:13

Actually, they can need the same amount of propellent (once you get a craft into space, there isn't any gravity or air resistence slowing it down so it will just carry on going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going...) It would require more to launch the payload off the asteroid at the end of it's journey. And it would be slower.

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 08:12:26

Actually, they can need the same amount of propellent (once you get a craft into space, there isn't any gravity or air resistence slowing it down so it will just carry on going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going...) It would require more to launch the payload off the asteroid at the end of it's journey. And it would be slower.

so, you're saying that, send an 1 mT payload to LEO or GEO or Moon or NEO or Mars or Jupiter or Saturn or Andromeda need the same amount of propellent... well, just reveal your secret to NASA and ESA so we can start a manned Mars mission next year...

.

Terraformer · 2007-11-11 11:04:56

Yes, it would just take ages to reach adromeda that the universe would end before you got there. The Voyager probes don't have their engines on; they burned out years ago. If we can get to the moon and back again we can do the same with Mars. Fuel is not the problem, it's life support, radiation protection, habitats, etc. that's the problem. The shuttle could get to Mars, it just wouldn't have enough food, life support, oxygen, radiation protect, etc. We'd get the corpses of the astronouts there and back again but would you sign up to something with an almost 100% that you'd die (quantum improbability is factored in by the way)?

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 12:26:02

Yes, it would just take ages to reach adromeda that the universe would end before you got there. The Voyager probes don't have their engines on; they burned out years ago. If we can get to the moon and back again we can do the same with Mars. Fuel is not the problem, it's life support, radiation protection, habitats, etc. that's the problem. The shuttle could get to Mars, it just wouldn't have enough food, life support, oxygen, radiation protect, etc. We'd get the corpses of the astronouts there and back again but would you sign up to something with a 99.99999999999% that you'd die (quantum improbability is factored in by the way)?

probably you forget a parameter: "time"

yes, we can send humans to other stars at Voyager speed... but they must survive several millions years

the deep space probes sent so far needed many years to reach their target using the inertia of the launch and some planets' slingshots

that can't be acceptable if we want to send (e.g.) large life support to a Mars colony, then, we need some faster "trains" like a vehicle with giant amounts of propellent OR nuclear engines OR an asteroid with the right orbit

PS - please cut a few "9s" since they enlarge too much all posts

.

Terraformer · 2007-11-11 14:16:34

I didn't forget time. Like I said, the universe would end by the time humans reached Adromeda.

My point is that the Asteroid wouldn't be going at the right speed and it's more efficient to launch the craft straight at Mars and leave it alone until it gets near Mars.

gaetanomarano · 2007-11-11 14:55:45

My point is that the Asteroid wouldn't be going at the right speed and it's more efficient to launch the craft straight at Mars and leave it alone until it gets near Mars.

since NASA (really) plans manned missions to asteroids, I don't see any reason we can't send unmanned probes (also, they don't need to come back to earth) nor see any problem to release a payload from an asteroid while traveling near Mars

I think (and admit) that, the only real problem of this idea, is to find a "good asteroid" with the right orbit for the job

.

Terraformer · 2007-11-11 15:06:15

And it has to be faster than the craft could get to by using the fuel to accelerate instead.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-11-10 16:17:40

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#2 2007-11-11 05:46:06

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#3 2007-11-11 06:32:30

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#4 2007-11-11 06:55:02

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#5 2007-11-11 07:01:13

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#6 2007-11-11 07:01:55

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#7 2007-11-11 07:10:35

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#8 2007-11-11 07:21:49

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#9 2007-11-11 07:38:11

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#10 2007-11-11 07:49:15

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#11 2007-11-11 08:06:13

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#12 2007-11-11 08:12:26

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#13 2007-11-11 11:04:56

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#14 2007-11-11 12:26:02

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#15 2007-11-11 14:16:34

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#16 2007-11-11 14:55:45

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

#17 2007-11-11 15:06:15

Re: >>> Asteroids as Deep Space Probes >>>

Board footer