Manned mission to an asteroid proposed

[UM-Bot]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/asteroid3.jpg

A panel of experts appointed by President Obama have proposed that America's manned space programme should bypass the moon and instead send humans to an asteroid as a stepping stone towards Mars.

"The next small step for man - and giant leap for mankind - now seems increasingly likely to be bootfall on a lump of rock and metal more than a million miles from Earth. "

View: Full Article | Source: Telegraph

[The Silver Thong]

This would be a waste of time and resources. There would be knowledge to gain from it but very little in regards to helping us get to Mars. PLus far more dangerous. Maybe theres an asteroid that we could hitch a ride on to Mars hmmm

[behaviour???]

This would be a waste of time and resources. There would be knowledge to gain from it but very little in regards to helping us get to Mars. PLus far more dangerous. Maybe theres an asteroid that we could hitch a ride on to Mars hmmm

Asteroids have another branch of science for them and a little knowledge wont hurt

Thanks

B???

[The Silver Thong]

Asteroids have another branch of science for them and a little knowledge wont hurt

Thanks

B???

The little knowledge would not be worth the risk imo. Use robots for that not people. The moon is by far the best way for us to get to Mars.

[Torgo]

Technically robots are a better way of doing ANYTHING on the Moon and Mars than sending people. A manned mission to a near-earth asteroid would be way faster than a trip to Mars, could use existing hardware for the most part, and would be the first trip outside the Earth-Moon system we would have made. It seems a logical step. Its even easier than getting to the moon in some ways.

Manned missions are about the adventure and the sheer coolness of squirting PEOPLE elsewhere in the solar system, not science. And sometimes cool matters.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Torgo

[+DieChecker]

I think having a manned mission to an asteroid would be excellent for science and industry. Eventually rounding up asteroids will be cheaper then pushing heavy materials up into space, so having the ability to catch them will be an important ability.

This region in our solar system, called the Asteroid Belt or Main Belt, probably contains millions of asteroids ranging widely in size from Ceres, which at 940 km in diameter is about one-quarter the diameter of our Moon, to bodies that are less than 1 km across.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Asteroids

Maybe building a NEA, Near Earth Asteroid, into somewhat of a base and using its existing orbit to move further out into the solar system is not such a bad idea.

[TALM]

Or perhaps we are being preconditioned that in the long run we are going to stay off the Moon.

Makes sense to me

[Sweetpumper]

'Cause of the 'dense vegetation'?

[TALM]

'Cause of the 'dense vegetation'?

Thats dense "vegative" type "growth".

And no.............

I mean, it would be a shame and all if it was killed off but that isnt my prime concern.

If I was to state my theory, it would be pointless because it's only a theory.

A soundenly perposterous theory at that.

[MID]

Technically robots are a better way of doing ANYTHING on the Moon and Mars than sending people.

I would have to argue that one Torg.

While robotic missions are certainly useful, there are certain things we've already seen from Apollo that cannot be done by robotic craft.

Land when things go south.

Establish a human presence on the Moon.

Mine its resources.

Have the rational crtical thinking skills to interpret and analyze on the fly.

Change your profile quickly.

Things like that...

A manned mission to a near-earth asteroid would be way faster than a trip to Mars, could use existing hardware for the most part, and would be the first trip outside the Earth-Moon system we would have made. It seems a logical step. Its even easier than getting to the moon in some ways.

I don't think so.

But it would be interesting and a logical stepping stone perhaps, but, like all other manned exploration, costly. One simply has to weight the benefit of going to an asteroid v. the benefit of going to a planet.

Manned missions are about the adventure and the sheer coolness of squirting PEOPLE elsewhere in the solar system, not science. And sometimes cool matters.

...Cool.

But Apollo rather proves the opposite of your argument.

The program was about landing on the Moon, then establishing a workable exploration system, and then, science.

Since Apollo, we've had the ISS program.

And that is 100% about science.

[danielost]

as for asteroid mining i would use robots and leave nothing behind. in space a space station is going to need dirt as much as it is going to need metal.

and no i am not talking about planet orbiting erecter sets.

Edited October 26, 2009 by danielost

[Alienated Being]

I don't wanna close my eyes, I don't wanna fall asleep 'cause I'll miss you ba -- oh, wait... this isn't Armageddon.

Awesome, it will be interesting to see what information they can gather from such a large asteroid in space (probably not much more than what we already know, but it's always worth another shot).

[Torgo]

I would have to argue that one Torg.

While robotic missions are certainly useful, there are certain things we've already seen from Apollo that cannot be done by robotic craft.

Land when things go south.

Establish a human presence on the Moon.

Mine its resources.

Have the rational crtical thinking skills to interpret and analyze on the fly.

Change your profile quickly.

Things like that...

Perhaps I should rephrase myself. For any specific scientific objective or set of objectives, it is a lot more cost-effective to use robots. Manned missions can and do do a good deal of science - but the same money put towards unmanned probes can possibly do more, because you don't have to deal with life support and living space and radiation shielding and the multitudes of safety features. For example, for on the order of the cost of two shuttle missions (I think that's the amount) the Cassini probe has been in orbit of Saturn for 5 years, telling us more about its moons and rings than we ever knew before.

That being said, a manned mission would be significantly more versatile and would be by definition a sample-return mission, and people can alter their objectives/capabilities and improvise. They also do things a hell of a lot faster than remotely operated robots. My point is just that for a specific scientific objectives, an unmanned mission can probably get it done cheaper.

[MID]

Perhaps I should rephrase myself. For any specific scientific objective or set of objectives, it is a lot more cost-effective to use robots. Manned missions can and do do a good deal of science - but the same money put towards unmanned probes can possibly do more, because you don't have to deal with life support and living space and radiation shielding and the multitudes of safety features. For example, for on the order of the cost of two shuttle missions (I think that's the amount) the Cassini probe has been in orbit of Saturn for 5 years, telling us more about its moons and rings than we ever knew before.

That being said, a manned mission would be significantly more versatile and would be by definition a sample-return mission, and people can alter their objectives/capabilities and improvise. They also do things a hell of a lot faster than remotely operated robots. My point is just that for a specific scientific objectives, an unmanned mission can probably get it done cheaper.

Agreed.

I certainly understand your point and concur.

And I will be the first to say that un-manned space missions must continue. When we return to manned exploration efforts, there must be concurrent robotic missions.

[danielost]

mid would there be a problem of floating of such a rock ie jump to high.

[MID]

mid would there be a problem of floating of such a rock ie jump to high.

I like the way you think daniel.

That's an excellent point, and you're correct. Surface gravity on a common asteroid would be far too low for any functional mobility by a man (as far as I can see).

Lets take the dwarf planet Ceres...a big old asteroid, more or less, somewhere around 300 miles in diameter.

The surface gravity on Ceres is a mere 0.03g (almost 6 times less gravity than the Moon). In other words, a 165 pound man would weigh only 5 lbs there. Very touchy footing.

But look at a smaller, perhaps more accessible asteroid, like Icarus, for instance, a rock maybe a mile across ( a near Earth asteroid that would be more suitable for exploratory endeavors). The gravity there? Only .00004 g, or, a 165 pound man would weigh about 1/10 oz. on its surface. Basically, 0 g.

How high could you jump on Icarus?

Well, supposing a man could actually land there and get himself to the surface and, wearing a typically bulky spacesuit, jump hard. On the Moon, an Apollo astronauat could attain maybe 2.5 feet with his 180 pound mass suit on. On Icarus, the same jump would net him a lofting, arcing, frightening trajectory into space, attaining an altitude of over 10,000 feet.

And after that frightening ascent, you'd fall...very slowly, for about 1 hour and 7 minutes, finally impacting the surface at a mere 5 feet per second (3.5 MPH).

A hell of a ride aloft, by your own foot power, but a whale of a problem for nominal mobility and functionality on the surface of that asteroid!

You'd eventually come down to the surface of the rock...but actually doing something without launching youself above the surface rather inconveniently would be next to impossible on a normal asteroid.

Heck...for that matter, even out on Ceres, you'd blow off the surface and go 14 feet up on a decent jump! I think most people would find that cumbersome enough to deal with!

Good point!