A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 3rd 03, 03:40 PM
Al Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later

Folk,
You all have probably seen this news item:


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12454

Note: 2003 QQ47 went from 1 to 0 on the Torino scale (those boys at
JPL are sharp!).

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html


As much as I would love to go back to the moon or Mars, my two cents
is the next manned expedition to an extraterrestrial body should be an
asteroid.
Mainly because we need a thorough examination of one of those dudes!
Why ? Because the data is needed for mitigation (asteroid deflection )
planning. I can remember reading the University of Arizona book
Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids (1995) and finding out that even
tho a lot of people have deflection ideas... some crucial data about
the material composition of asteroids is needed to know what the
response to the deflection method will be. Short time warnings (and
2003 QQ47 originally only had a 10 year time scale!), will probably
warrant thermonuclear device deployment.

Also , just how costly could an international manned (robot augmented)
mission to an asteroid be? You ain't burning all that delta V and
using the associated structure to go in and out of a potential well
that nowhere near the Moon's.
Why not assemble the expedition spacecraft at the space station too?
(Just as ol von Braun wanted to do back in the 50's.)

The future of civilization may just depend on such an expedition.

Al Jackson

PS: See the letter below:



Mr. Gary L. Martin
NASA Space Architect
Room 9F44
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C., 20546-0001

April 4, 2003

Dear Mr. Martin,

The Columbia tragedy has triggered a public discussion of the future
of the space
station, space station science, and the utilization of humans in
space. The outcome that
we expect from this activity is an endorsement of a program of human
space flight at
NASA - perhaps returning to the goal enunciated by President Reagan
in 1988: "To
expand human presence and activity beyond Earth-orbit into the solar
system" -
accompanied by a prolonged and, possibly, divisive debate on the
utility of the space
station for science. As space scientists, we believe the latter can
be avoided by adding
a new, exciting, and affordable goal for human spaceflight and the
use of the space
station. This is the inclusion of "mitigation" or "NEO deflection
studies" (i.e., how to
prepare for a comet or asteroid that is found on an Earth-threatening
path), as one of
NASA's primary goals. This goal, which we believe can combine the
best of robotic and
human space capabilities, can also be thought of as a precursor to
another future
endeavor (e.g., see the discussion in Scientific Requirements for
Human Exploration,
Space Studies Board, 1993) - that of a manned mission to explore
Mars. Also, such a
goal can be thought of as logical extension of the congressionally
mandated survey,
currently being conducted in the Office of Space Science, to find any
potentially
hazardous near-Earth objects (NEOs) larger than one kilometer.

In a recent workshop for NASA's Office of Space Science, we developed
a roadmap for
attaining the "Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous
Comets and Asteroids"
(www.noao.edu/meetings/mitigation/report.html). This roadmap shows
that to gain the
basic knowledge needed for some future mitigation technology, a new
NASA program is
needed consisting of many novel robotic missions to acquire detailed
geophysical
information on the physical diversity, the subsurface, and the deep
interiors of a variety
of near-Earth objects. In addition, NASA and DoD will need to work
together to "learn"
how to apply deflection technologies including the application of low
thrust devices, the
application of novel in-space power sources, and/or the rapid
application of large
amounts of energy on small solar system bodies. We expect that a mix
of both human
and robotic missions to objects in near-Earth space and new uses for
the space station
will be required to test these technologies. The Space Science Board
has already noted
that there is a need for an optimal mix of human and robotic
activities in such endeavors
in their Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space
(Space Studies Board,
1993).

All of this leads us to propose a new goal for human and robotic
space flight: Show how
humans and robots can work together on small objects in near-Earth
interplanetary
space to: 1) accomplish new fundamental science on planetary objects;
2) aspire to
previously unimaginable technical achievements on objects in
interplanetary space; and,
3) protect the Earth from the future possibility of a catastrophic
collision with a
hazardous object from space. Since these activities would allow
human spaceflight to
cross the threshold into interplanetary space, they could also be
thought of as a
precursor activity to provide the essential technical and medical
experience for that more
distant, but even more challenging, goal - a human exploratory
mission to Mars. We also
note that among the recent NRC Solar System Exploration "Decadal"
Survey
recommendations is one that exhorts NASA "_to make significant new
investments in
advanced technology in order that future high priority flight
missions can succeed."
Particular stress was put on in-space power and propulsion systems
such as advanced
RTG's, in-space fission reactor power sources, nuclear electric
propulsion (NEP) and
advanced ion engines. In the President's 2004 budget proposal, NEP
figures strongly in
connection with a future mission to the icy satellites of Jupiter as
part of the goal to
understand the origins and extent of life in the solar system.
"Mitigation," or even the
gathering of the specific knowledge that will be needed as a
prerequisite for such an
activity, was not dealt with in the Survey, since it is a technical
goal and not an
exploration or scientific goal. But it is now clear, as a result of
the mitigation workshop,
that low thrust propulsion and the application of in-space power
systems to collision
avoidance may now be the best way to proceed. It is a small leap to
imagine an
experiment to deflect a small near-Earth asteroid though the
application of thrust from a
NEP system (or an advanced SEP) fueled by an advanced power source.
Moreover it is
an objective that resonates with your agency's newly stated objective
of "...Protecting
the Home Planet... As only NASA can!" In short, we see an important
coupling between
the requirements for the long-term future of solar system scientific
exploration, as
expressed by the Decadal survey, the needs of planetary protection,
and a worthwhile
program that utilizes humans, the space station, and robots in
near-Earth interplanetary
space.

In public discussions of the President's in-space nuclear power and
propulsion system
initiative, the issue of environmental safety can be expected to
arise even though
extensive past experience has shown that such systems are extremely
safe. Nuclear
safety is a matter of great public concern that we share. However, we
would also like to
point out that the likely application of these kinds of technologies
to a future NEO
deflection system will also mitigate against the possibility of a
much greater
environmental hazard: that of a NEO impact itself. Thus, from an
environmental
perspective, there may be much to be gained in the application of
these systems to the
NEO collision problem.

A cogent new goal is needed for human space flight and significant
investments and
experimentation are required to develop in-flight power and
propulsion systems for future
solar system exploration. In addition, a new program needs to be
started at NASA to
create an adequate scientific basis for a future mitigation system
and, simultaneously, to
learn how to apply future collision mitigation technologies. There
is a nexus between
these goals and objectives that we believe should become the basis of
a new thrust for
NASA as it emerges from the analysis and public discussion
surrounding the Columbia
tragedy. We advocate, and strongly believe, that by adopting this
goal the United
States can go forward with human spaceflight utilizing the space
station with productive,
well-supported and meaningful objectives.

We are, sincerely yours, Michael J. S. Belton, Ph.D.
Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC, Tucson, AZ

Donald K. Yeomans, Ph.D.
JPL/Cal Tech, Pasadena, CA

Steven Ostro, Ph.D.
JPL/Cal Tech, Pasadena, CA

Piet Hut, Ph.D.
Inst. Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ

Clark Chapman, Ph.D.
Southwest Research Inst., Boulder, CO

Derek Sears, Ph.D.
Univ. of Arkansas, AR

Michael F. A'Hearn, Ph.D.
Univ. of Maryland, MD

Russell L. Schweickart
Apollo 9 Astronaut,
Chairman, B612 Foundation

Nalin Samarasinha, Ph.D.
National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, AZ

Daniel Scheeres, Ph.D.
Univ. of Michigan, MI

Michael Drake, Ph.D.
Univ. of Arizona, AZ

Keith Holsapple, Ph.D.
Univ. of Washington, WA

Erik Asphaug, Ph.D.
Univ. of California at Santa Cruz, CA

Mark Sykes, Ph.D.
University of Arizona, AZ

Alberto Cellino, Ph.D.
Astronomical Observatory of Torino, Italy

Lucy McFadden, Ph.D.
Univ. of Maryland, MD

Donald R. Davis, Ph.D.
Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ

Timothy D. Swindle, Ph.D.
University of Arizona, AZ

Stephen M. Larson, Ph.D.
University of Arizona, AZ

Larry A. Lebofsky, Ph.D.
University of Arizona, AZ

Mark Trueblood
Winer Observatory, AZ

Beatrice E.A. Mueller, Ph.D.
National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, AZ

Joseph Spitale, Ph.D.
Lunar and Planetary Lab., Tucson, AZ

Tod R. Lauer, Ph.D.
National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, AZ

Robert Farquhar
Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD

Daniel Britt, Ph.D.
Univ. of Central Florida, FL

Elisabetta Pierazzo
Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ

Kevin Housen
The Boeing Co., Seattle, WA

Thomas D. Jones, Ph.D
Planetary Scientist and Former Astronaut, Oakton, VA

Ronald Fevig
Univ. of Arizona, AZ

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Let's go to Mars - but why come back? Mantra Space Science Misc 5 August 31st 03 10:00 PM
Is big moon in sky plausible? Christopher M. Jones Space Science Misc 7 August 31st 03 12:20 PM
Mars trajectory problems? Bill Clark Space Science Misc 0 July 13th 03 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.