Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

cIclops · 2008-05-20 01:25:41

Page 17 of the study shows a "NEO science payload bay" located at the base of the SM, other SM concepts have a small unpressurized cargo bay near the CM.

The Lower Bookend mission graphic says that exploration would be done by a combination of EVA and robotics (see red box). Page 18 also shows a telerobotic system to replace the LIDS adapter. This suggests that Orion would stand off from the asteroid and maintain position with thrusters.

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-20 15:59:43

"Stand off?" That sounds pretty dang risky for the astronauts.

cIclops · 2008-05-21 00:58:20

Why would it be risky? Orion will be in exactly the same orbit as the asteroid so there should be almost no relative motion between them. Thrusters would only be needed to move Orion around the asteroid, once in place astronauts will be able to safely explore.

cIclops · 2008-05-24 04:50:25

From Constellation Enabled Missions (PDF 8MB) - 18 Jul 2007

This would be the next step after first exploratory missions using the basic "Lower Bookend" configuration.

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-24 08:35:39

Why would it be risky? Orion will be in exactly the same orbit as the asteroid so there should be almost no relative motion between them. Thrusters would only be needed to move Orion around the asteroid, once in place astronauts will be able to safely explore.

Because the asteroid will be rotating relative to Orion.

cIclops · 2008-05-24 09:31:27

Good point.

Asteroids can't rotate very fast or they break apart - typical period is around 5 hours.

Rune · 2008-05-24 11:10:38

Actually, I think this quind of mission is really important in the long run. When you think of expanding human presence in the solar system, asteroids, especially near earth, offer some cool benefits, as many people has pointed out: the could be turned into supply depots for fuel produced in-situ, need almost no delta-V to reach or leave since they have no gravity well, and with the sufficiently advanced tech, you could turn them into shipyards, taking ALL of the cost of further exploration and colonization away from earth (well, most of it anyway, you get my meaning).

I really think that the establishment of some quind of colony/station in an asteroid using ISRU for almost-autonomous operation is the key to colonizing the rest of the solar sytem. If nothing else, it would drastically reduce the effect of earth's gravity well on costs. Of course, the Moon might do the trick just as well AND give you a nice sense of direction with its weak G (useful for contructing or living to an unknown exent), but if you can mine an asteroid and make it habitable, you can mine them all, and that's a lot of asteroids...

Of course, many stuff has to happen until we get there, but I think it's at least as feasible as a moon colony and way more than a mars colony, and both are getting serious discussion. Why no go to the belt and forget about the big gravity wells at all?

Rune. And here come Niven's "Belters".

Terraformer · 2008-05-24 13:23:42

C-Type asteroids would be the ones to colonise.

How many of the NEOs are C-Types?

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-24 16:13:00

Good point.
Asteroids can't rotate very fast or they break apart - typical period is around 5 hours.

But they do rotate, so if you have a man down on the asteroid and stationary to it, then he's not stationary respective to Orion anymore...

I do think that digging asteroids will be harder than most realize... we're so used to working in gravity, we can hardly think in terms of zero gravity.

Rune · 2008-05-24 23:56:02

I do think that digging asteroids will be harder than most realize... we're so used to working in gravity, we can hardly think in terms of zero gravity.

That's the point: learning how to do it, because it may be very useful for pretty much everything else in the solar system, don't you think?

Rune. Every succesful life-form expands to new environments if the opportunity arises.

JoshNH4H · 2008-05-25 14:20:00

About which types of asteroids to colonize, Asteroid colonization isn't very important, mining maybe, but turning an asteroid into a spinning space station? no.

Gregori · 2008-05-26 05:40:21

About which types of asteroids to colonize, Asteroid colonization isn't very important, mining maybe, but turning an asteroid into a spinning space station? no.

why not?

Terraformer · 2008-05-27 04:41:57

Because, like most people here, jumpboy11j is a Marshead who thinks only Mars can and should be colonized. That's the most severe case of Marsheadism, less severe cases are thinking Mars should be colonized first.

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-27 06:52:48

Um, the conditions on Mars make it ten times easier to colonize than any other body in the solar system.

cIclops · 2008-05-27 07:14:32

Hmm, ten times easier than the Moon? Getting there is 80% of the problem, and the Moon is a LOT easier to reach.

Rune · 2008-05-27 08:18:56

I think we are all a little gravity well-dependant. My personal belief is that humanity can, and should, adapt to free-fall in the long run in order to really utilize the solar system's resources and living space to its fullest. It may be way easier than trying to re-create another earth. Besides, in space you just need a good, closed life support system, just like in mars, don't you? And resources are just as abundant and probalbly easier to move around in the end.

Rune. Succesful species adapt to new environments.

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-27 09:09:18

Hmm, ten times easier than the Moon? Getting there is 80% of the problem, and the Moon is a LOT easier to reach.

Yes, ten times easier than the Moon. Mars is far more hospitable (gravity, radiation, temperature, length of day), has all the major chemical elements for life and industry (CHON, halogens), and doesn't require much more delta-V to get there than the Moon (aerobraking for Mars orbit insertion/deorbiting). If you want to build a more-or-less self sustaining civilization on another body in the solar system, Mars is the obvious choice.

cIclops · 2008-05-27 09:40:52

For an entire civilization yes, but for a colony definitely not.

The Moon has gravity, radiation shielding is not significantly harder than Mars, temperature variations at the Poles are manageable (just under the surface is almost optimal), day length can be easily handled artificially, there are unlimited quantities of O, plenty of Al, Fe, Si, Mg and Ca. There's H in the regolith too in small but extractable quantities. ISRU will take care of most of the DV and there's no comparison between transit times, Mars is 60 times further away. The Moon wins hands down for establishing the first off world colony.

Rune · 2008-05-27 10:05:02

For an entire civilization yes, but for a colony definitely not.
The Moon has gravity, radiation shielding is not significantly harder than Mars, temperature variations at the Poles are manageable (just under the surface is almost optimal), day length can be easily handled artificially, there are unlimited quantities of O, plenty of Al, Fe, Si, Mg and Ca. There's H in the regolith too in small but extractable quantities. ISRU will take care of most of the DV and there's no comparison between transit times, Mars is 60 times further away. The Moon wins hands down for establishing the first off world colony.

If you follow that trend of thought, you end up with NEO as an easier yet alternative (except the gravity part). Besides, the entire outpost could be moved from site to site to gather resources, and the technology is essentialy ISS-like+ISRU.

Rune. Just how neccesary is gravity?

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-27 10:09:18

It wouldn't be a "colony" but more like an outpost. Just about everything except base metals, glasses, and Oxygen would have to be imported, and a solar-powered base that isn't near the poles would require a huge amount of energy storage and related excess production. And managing the day/night cycle indoors, buried under regolith to hide from radiation and small space rocks... what a lovely way to live.

And the Moon lacks many basic elements, it lacks Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and probably some of the Halogens too. All things made from these elements would have to be imported from elsewhere! I reject the statement that Hydrogen is "available" on the Moon: it has not been proven that it is even on the Moon in any quantity, much less in a form that is reasonably easy to extract. Without Hydrogen, ISRU is a half-measure at best, adding a major Delta-V/cargo mass penalty for returning reusable vehicles.

Mars on the other hand... billions and billions of tonnes of Hydrogen and Carbon right there on the poles. Double the gravity, so people can probably walk half-way normally on Mars. Day and night cycles almost identical to Earth's, enough atmosphere to block most of the radiation and rocks and solar flares, and while transit is longer most cargo - which will comprise a major fraction of interplanetary travel I bet - won't care if its six days or six months, the Delta-V is about the same.

cIclops · 2008-05-27 10:11:38

Rune. Just how neccesary is gravity?

We know that people progressively deteriorate without any gravity, whether 1/6 g or 1/3 is enough we don't know.

Rune · 2008-05-27 10:41:33

Rune. Just how neccesary is gravity?
We know that people progressively deteriorate without any gravity, whether 1/6 g or 1/3 is enough we don't know.

So they could't return to any gravity well becouse their bodies would adapt to free-fall and bones and circulatory system would get weaker, I get that part. The question was on a more "filosofical" level: Do we really care, in the long run? There's going to be people working and living in zero g, so why not let them become dependant on it? If the habitation is permanent, they would be adapting to their habitat. Same on mars, albeit reduced to some exent by the 1/3 g. Would we want that?

Rune. Personally, I see it inevitable.

Terraformer · 2008-05-27 11:19:20

So many 'probablys'.

Astronauts so far have managed to reacclimatise to Earth Gravity. The longest stay was 1 year wasn't it?

The problems with gravity seem to be about embryos and children.

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-27 11:56:05

So many 'probablys'.
Astronauts so far have managed to reacclimatise to Earth Gravity. The longest stay was 1 year wasn't it?
The problems with gravity seem to be about embryos and children.

Some have "reacclimated" better than others though.

JoshNH4H · 2008-05-27 13:57:09

About which types of asteroids to colonize, Asteroid colonization isn't very important, mining maybe, but turning an asteroid into a spinning space station? no.
why not?

Because if you're colonizing an asteroid, you should just colonize the moon.

And what you forgot to mention, terraformer, is that you have the much rarer disease Ceresheadism, which thinks that ceres is a perfect place to live, and that Mars is useless.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2008-05-20 01:25:41

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#52 2008-05-20 15:59:43

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#53 2008-05-21 00:58:20

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#54 2008-05-24 04:50:25

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#55 2008-05-24 08:35:39

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#56 2008-05-24 09:31:27

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#57 2008-05-24 11:10:38

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#58 2008-05-24 13:23:42

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#59 2008-05-24 16:13:00

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#60 2008-05-24 23:56:02

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#61 2008-05-25 14:20:00

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#62 2008-05-26 05:40:21

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#63 2008-05-27 04:41:57

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#64 2008-05-27 06:52:48

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#65 2008-05-27 07:14:32

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#66 2008-05-27 08:18:56

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#67 2008-05-27 09:09:18

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#68 2008-05-27 09:40:52

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#69 2008-05-27 10:05:02

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#70 2008-05-27 10:09:18

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#71 2008-05-27 10:11:38

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#72 2008-05-27 10:41:33

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#73 2008-05-27 11:19:20

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#74 2008-05-27 11:56:05

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

#75 2008-05-27 13:57:09

Re: Near Earth Object (NEO) missions

Board footer