nasa's big asteroid plan is one engineers 'will eat up'

[bcbm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/nasas-big-asteroid-plan-is-one-engineers-will-eat-up-mini-spaceships-harpooning-jetpacks/2011/07/23/gIQAs6H4UI_story.html

this sounds awesome

[Dr Mindbender]

Sounds like Obama has been watching too much Armageddon.

In regards to NASA I think designing a shuttle replacement and permanent lunar colony should be first and second priorities, respectively.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sounds like Obama has been watching too much Armageddon.

That film sucks, but that aside, space rocks are a real problem and potentially very serious and should not be taken lightly.

[Dr Mindbender]

That film sucks, but that aside, space rocks are a real problem and potentially very serious and should not be taken lightly.

If a apocalyptic sized asteroid came into a earth colliding trajectory, sending astronauts near it will do precisely nothing. You cant land on a asteroid for the same reason you cant walk on it.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If a apocalyptic sized asteroid came into a earth colliding trajectory, sending astronauts near it will do precisely nothing. You cant land on a asteroid for the same reason you cant walk on it.

Which is exactly what the mission is about, trying to develop ways to more closely inspect and understand space rocks, and knowledge of them is quite lacking in areas. One must learn how they work to effectively destroy them if one was to pose a serious threat, and on this issue there is a lack of hard facts.

[Dr Mindbender]

Which is exactly what the mission is about, trying to develop ways to more closely inspect and understand space rocks, and knowledge of them is quite lacking in areas. One must learn how they work to effectively destroy them if one was to pose a serious threat, and on this issue there is a lack of hard facts.

I think nuclear warheads or energy beam weapons would be more effective.

[thesadmafioso]

That sounds like quite the idiotic endeavor, they should focus on something actually worthwhile like a mission to mars or permanent lunar settlement. Even just returning to the moon made more sense than this.

[Dr Mindbender]

The risk of an asteroid hitting Earth is one of the reasons a permanent lunar or martian colony would make more sense. It would be permanent solutions, but with sending expedition teams to an asteroid to destroy it, its necessary to spend money each time to get there.

It comes back to the 'eggs in one basket' proverb.

Of course i think we should defend Earth, but im not convinced this is the best method. We should utilise existing technologies, such as the earths dormant nuclear missiles, high energy lasers or possibly a new generation of concentrated solar energy weapon harnessing the sun's rays. These methods would be cheaper and more effective than foolhardy and dangerous manned missions.

[Welshy]

What potential is there for mining these asteroids? I know we're no where close to being able to transport these materials and such, but getting there could open up the doors to new resources. Also trying to get to the asteroids may encourage us to test the long term traveling technology by sending a manned mission to mars. So while I agree we should set up a moon colony and/or go to mars first, I don't think we should dismiss going to the asteroids so quickly.

[Salyut]

Asteriods > moon. You don't get hydrocarbons and other fun things to play with on the moon; where as a C-type asteroid has this and more.

[Salyut]

What potential is there for mining these asteroids? I know we're no where close to being able to transport these materials and such, but getting there could open up the doors to new resources. Also trying to get to the asteroids may encourage us to test the long term traveling technology by sending a manned mission to mars. So while I agree we should set up a moon colony and/or go to mars first, I don't think we should dismiss going to the asteroids so quickly.

Asteroid mining is problematic economically. Namely, if I recall right, you could flood the platnium group metal market in one trip and devalue the commodity.

[Welshy]

Asteroid mining is problematic economically. Namely, if I recall right, you could flood the platnium group metal market in one trip and devalue the commodity.

I should have said that I was looking for its potential for a communist earth. Though that is an important point to bring up for a capitalist society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Manned missions to asteroids make sense in multiple ways:

A) They're easier to reach, since their orbits can be Earth-crossing. This means that they can come closer to us than the Moon.

B) They're easier to leave. Being much less massive than the Moon, escape velocities are negligable - one could end up orbiting a suitably-sized asteroid simply by taking a running jump!

C) It would give us invaluable data with regards to working on asteroids. Our knowledge of AI and robotics is currently insufficient for complete automation of asteroid mining, and may not get good enough soon enough for practical experience of humans working on asteroids to be not worth acquiring.

D) Taking the above into account, a manned mission to an asteroid would serve as a "dry run" for a full-blown Mars mission. Mars has two asteroid moons, so practical experience in establishing a presence on an asteroid would come in handy, especially if we're going to Mars with permanent colonisation in mind - Phobos would make a handy space station.

However, if they are planning to build the stuff for all this in space, as the article seems to indicate, then the very first thing NASA needs to be getting on with is a re-usable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle.

Of course, NASA could have achieved that a long time ago, but ever since the Apollo project ended it's been dicked around by politicians more interested in scoring contracts for their sponsors than actually achieving anything worthwhile.

[Nox]

Sounds like Obama has been watching too much Armageddon.

In regards to NASA I think designing a shuttle replacement and permanent lunar colony should be first and second priorities, respectively.

In regards to NASA I think their first priority should be to shut themselves down, and for the government to use the huge amounts of money that would have been spent on space travel on getting their own people out of poverty, healthcare, and other things beneficial to the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In regards to NASA I think their first priority should be to shut themselves down, and for the government to use the huge amounts of money that would have been spent on space travel on getting their own people out of poverty, healthcare, and other things beneficial to the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

For fuck's sake, not this shit again. The amount that the US government currently spends on NASA pales in comparison to what they spend on military stuff, especially if you include the so-called "black budget".

Take it from the people who're researching new and inventive ways of killing others, not the people who might end up helping to save the whole damn planet.

[Nox]

For fuck's sake, not this shit again. The amount that the US government currently spends on NASA pales in comparison to what they spend on military stuff, especially if you include the so-called "black budget".

Take it from the people who're researching new and inventive ways of killing others, not the people who might end up helping to save the whole damn planet.

Good point, they should get rid of a large portion of their military too.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The risk of an asteroid hitting Earth is one of the reasons a permanent lunar or martian colony would make more sense. It would be permanent solutions, but with sending expedition teams to an asteroid to destroy it, its necessary to spend money each time to get there.

I'm not entirely positively inclined on manned missions, but the thing is that it is about learning about them, not that when the time came to destroy a potentially very dangerous space rock coming on earth, it would be done by a manned mission; one of the issues with the many potential ideas for handling them, including using nuclear bombs on rockets, is that it is not well understood how they would react etc.

Anyway so, are we to take your position is that the limited population supported by a martian or lunar colony would be the only ones to survive and the rest abandoned? The ships leaving earth with all libraries, arts and relics, while the majority are left to their doom on earth- later to be re-colonised by the corrupt elites that were quickly whisked away to the off-planet colonies.


In regards to NASA I think their first priority should be to shut themselves down, and for the government to use the huge amounts of money that would have been spent on space travel on getting their own people out of poverty, healthcare, and other things beneficial to the people.

NASA budget is like half of the U.S. Department of Education's budget... It's not huge amounts of money. 17 billion is nothing. The U.S. military spending including expenses shifted to other related departments to make the DOD budget look smaller is around 1 trillion.

Not to mention science spending is good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good point, they should get rid of a large portion of their military too.

I still maintain that defunding NASA is a stupid idea. The relatively tiny amount of money saved would be insignificant compared to the loss incurred by putting one of the planet's smartest bunches of people permanently out of work.

[Nox]

I still maintain that defunding NASA is a stupid idea. The relatively tiny amount of money saved would be insignificant compared to the loss incurred by putting one of the planet's smartest bunches of people permanently out of work.

Perhaps I was a bit over the top there, what I really mean is NASA shouldn't waste money on pointless stuff, e.g. the space race, when there are much better things to do in terms of improving the lives of your own citizens. It may seem like a relatively tiny amount of money, but its still billions of dollars you're talking about, that can make a huge difference if put to good use.

However, I do support NASA doing 'useful' things, things that have a benefit to mankind, not just showing off like when they sent a man to the moon.

[Blackscare]

In regards to NASA I think designing a shuttle replacement and permanent lunar colony should be first and second priorities, respectively.

Call me a sci-fi nut but I think that some sort of space elevator type idea would be much more cost-effective. We need some means (short of an orbital dry dock) to lift large parts into orbit on a large scale. Simply scooting around in LEO is a waste of time. We should be putting up space stations en masse, for some sort of economic use (solar collection or hydroponics come to mind) or as a plausible long-term human habitat.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps I was a bit over the top there, what I really mean is NASA shouldn't waste money on pointless stuff, e.g. the space race, when there are much better things to do in terms of improving the lives of your own citizens. It may seem like a relatively tiny amount of money, but its still billions of dollars you're talking about, that can make a huge difference if put to good use.

Yes, but if I had the magical ability to arbitrarily re-jig the government budget of the US, I'd give NASA whatever would be left of the military budget after I used it to establish a National Health Service.


However, I do support NASA doing 'useful' things, things that have a benefit to mankind, not just showing off like when they sent a man to the moon.

They may have been racing the Soviets, but you can't deny that the Apollo project produced a prodigious amount of scientific data concerning the Moon.


Call me a sci-fi nut but I think that some sort of space elevator type idea would be much more cost-effective. We need some means (short of an orbital dry dock) to lift large parts into orbit on a large scale. Simply scooting around in LEO is a waste of time. We should be putting up space stations en masse, for some sort of economic use (solar collection or hydroponics come to mind) or as a plausible long-term human habitat.

A space elevator is a capital idea, the problem currently being that we can't produce the needed materials (carbon nanotubes) to the required lengths, although we're improving in leaps and bounds so there is hope yet.

[Nox]

They may have been racing the Soviets, but you can't deny that the Apollo project produced a prodigious amount of scientific data concerning the Moon.

Yes, it did, but would you agree that they certainly weren't worth the money and therefore public sacrifices.

[jake williams]

Yes, it did, but would you agree that they certainly weren't worth the money and therefore public sacrifices.
I don't agree, but you could make all sorts of similar arguments, and they'd be better arguments, about the film industry, the ice cream and chocolate industries, the clothing industry, and so on.

Exploring the universe is a fundamental human impulse, one worth funding even if it didn't have a long history of serendipitous spin-off discoveries, which it has.

[Nox]

I don't agree, but you could make all sorts of similar arguments, and they'd be better arguments, about the film industry, the ice cream and chocolate industries, the clothing industry, and so on.

Exploring the universe is a fundamental human impulse, one worth funding even if it didn't have a long history of serendipitous spin-off discoveries, which it has.

Those industries are different because they are private industries.

NASA is run by the government and funded by the taxpayer, but the taxpayer him/herself doesn't really benefit from it. The US government is choosing to spend billions collecting moon dust or rocks on mars, and they are effectively ignoring the welfare of their citizens by doing so as they are the ones who choose to spend the money the way they do.

Capitalism treats people like poop, let alone with tens of billions of dollars being drained out of public spending to fund some rocket ships going to the moon or some asteroid.

Although don't get me wrong - I would certainly support space exploration for the good of mankind in a communist society

[Blackscare]

Those industries are different because they are private industries.

NASA is run by the government and funded by the taxpayer, but the taxpayer him/herself doesn't really benefit from it

Since when do supposed communists make these sort of distinctions between private and public industry? That should mean nothing to us, after all we want to abolish private industry altogether. At the end of the day, it's human labor being directed in different directions. When these directions are wasteful and superfluous, they're just that. It doesn't matter if it's financed by capital appropriated from the backs of workers.


Also, all this talk of the "taxpayer" smacks of right-wing populism.

[Nox]

Since when do supposed communists make these sort of distinctions between private and public industry? That should mean nothing to us, after all we want to abolish private industry altogether. At the end of the day, it's human labor being directed in different directions. When these directions are wasteful and superfluous, they're just that. It doesn't matter if it's financed by capital appropriated from the backs of workers.


Also, all this talk of the "taxpayer" smacks of right-wing populism.

I am talking about NASA at this moment in time, in a capitalist nation.

I have updated the post since you quoted me so please read it again, I say that I would definitely support space exploration in a communist society.

And yes, right wingers often use the word 'tax payer' to attack systems such as healthcare and welfare, but those 2 things benefit the people, whereas space exploration doesn't. there is the key difference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Those industries are different because they are private industries.

NASA is run by the government and funded by the taxpayer, but the taxpayer him/herself doesn't really benefit from it.

This just isn't true. NASA recruits from a pool of US taxpayers, and they often collaborate with teams from other countries to the benefit of both.

Not to mention all the educators and non-NASA scientists who make a living off the kind of data that NASA acquires, increasing our collective knowledge of the real world in the process.

I'd say that's a worthy enterprise.


The US government is choosing to spend billions collecting moon dust or rocks on mars, and they are effectively ignoring the welfare of their citizens by doing so as they are the ones who choose to spend the money the way they do.

That's like criticising a drunk driver for not wearing a seatbelt! It's obvious that the spending priorities of the US government are all screwed up, but what is to be gained by attacking NASA - an overall benefit, I would say - as opposed to the elephant in the room (which happens to be armed to the teeth and some of it we can't even see)?


Capitalism treats people like poop, let alone with tens of billions of dollars being drained out of public spending to fund some rocket ships going to the moon or some asteroid.

Would you prefer the money be spent on bombs and cruise missiles? Because if NASA was shut down then there would be no assurances that the money would be spent on anything as "communist" as welfare.


Although don't get me wrong - I would certainly support space exploration for the good of mankind in a communist society

Sure, but I think calls to shut down NASA or similar organisations amount to shooting ourselves in the collective foot.

[Nox]

I think I was underestimating the benefits of space exploration when I first posted here, but I ask you one thing: What is there that NASA can do that makes the money spent better than, say, improving healthcare or education?

Yes there are some good examples of what they can do out there, but to be honest I don't really think there's anything they have done that's worthy of sacrificing money that would otherwise be spent on healthcare/education. It's all down to a matter of opinion and judgement really, and I am very cynical when it comes to space exploration :)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I think I was underestimating the benefits of space exploration when I first posted here, but I ask you one thing: What is there that NASA can do that makes the money spent better than, say, improving healthcare or education?

Yes there are some good examples of what they can do out there, but to be honest I don't really think there's anything they have done that's worthy of sacrificing money that would otherwise be spent on healthcare/education. It's all down to a matter of opinion and judgement really, and I am very cynical when it comes to space exploration :)

Since when is the dichotomy between health care and education or NASA? It's 17 billion, it's minuscule as such things go.

Not to mention you keep arguing about this as regards its current state within capitalism, and even there there this conflict is mistaken.

[Salyut]

A) They're easier to reach, since their orbits can be Earth-crossing. This means that they can come closer to us than the Moon.

B) They're easier to leave. Being much less massive than the Moon, escape velocities are negligable - one could end up orbiting a suitably-sized asteroid simply by taking a running jump!

D) Taking the above into account, a manned mission to an asteroid would serve as a "dry run" for a full-blown Mars mission. Mars has two asteroid moons, so practical experience in establishing a presence on an asteroid would come in handy, especially if we're going to Mars with permanent colonisation in mind - Phobos would make a handy space station.


You have to deal with a longer travel time due to the varied orbital mechanics. However, this is an excellent justification to design space hardware that will function over the long term. Hell - you wouldn't need nuclear power unless you want to sprint over on a NTR. If you have solar power and 19th century chemical engineering; you can make methane. Run that through a solid oxide fuel cell or three. Better power to weight then nuclear. :tt1:

If Phobos has the right composition; it'd make a damn good place to make fuel (and teleoperate robots on the surface).

edit: NoXion you might want to check out this book. (http://www.amazon.com/Dragonfly-NASA-Crisis-Aboard-Mir/dp/0887307833) It will break your faith in NASA.

[Dr Mindbender]

Good point, they should get rid of a large portion of their military too.

erm not too, instead.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think I was underestimating the benefits of space exploration when I first posted here, but I ask you one thing: What is there that NASA can do that makes the money spent better than, say, improving healthcare or education?



this question is a false dichotomy because if the US war machine was shut down, the USA could afford to spend on healthcare, education AND space exploration plus some.

[bcbm]

That sounds like quite the idiotic endeavor, they should focus on something actually worthwhile like a mission to mars or permanent lunar settlement. Even just returning to the moon made more sense than this.

if you read the article, they state this is basically a stepping stone to get to mars. it will be using much of the same technology they need to develop for long term space travel

[Tablo]

Whatever happens I want space exploration to be a more immediate and serious focus than it has been in the past. Eventually it will be in our interest to have a moon colony. I think that might be a better goal atm, but I'm not any expert on this stuff. I will call my grandfather about it. He was a rocket scientist that worked on the Apollo program.

[black magick hustla]

I think nuclear warheads or energy beam weapons would be more effective.

lol what is an "energy beam" weapon lol

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol what is an "energy beam" weapon lol

I think he meant to say directed-energy weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon).

[Tablo]

If it is of any interest, several other countries have plans to establish lunar bases. We don't have to totally rely on NASA. It may actually be good that NASA is going a different direction with this stuff than the other space nations.

[JustMovement]

Im not a big science guy, but I remember as a kid reading Clarke (thats where I first heard about the idea of a space elevator) and Asimov, and also reading children and not so children books about space and being just fascinated, thinking, that if we got to the moon when I wasnt even born, think of where we will be when I grow up!

I was in for a surprise...

Seriously, how are my moon children going to grow ridiculously tall because of the decreased gravity if there are no colonies on the moon to have children in?

How am I going to have an adventure/vacation on Mars if we dont start terraforming it?