More

NASA's Next Mission: Send Astronauts To Asteroid

Next Nasa Mission Asteroid

SETH BORENSTEIN   07/23/11 11:49 PM ET   AP

HOUSTON — With the space shuttle now history, NASA's next great mission is so audacious, the agency's best minds are wrestling with how to pull it off: Send astronauts to an asteroid in less than 15 years.

The challenges are innumerable. Some old-timers are grousing about it, saying going back to the moon makes more sense. But many NASA brains are thrilled to have such an improbable assignment.

And NASA leaders say civilization may depend on it.

An asteroid is a giant space rock that orbits the sun, like Earth. And someday one might threaten the planet.

But sending people to one won't be easy. You can't land on an asteroid because you'd bounce off – it has virtually no gravity. Reaching it might require a NASA spacecraft to harpoon it. Heck, astronauts couldn't even walk on it because they'd float away.

NASA is thinking about jetpacks, tethers, bungees, nets and spiderwebs to allow explorers to float just above the surface of it while attached to a smaller mini-spaceship.

Such a ship – something like a "Star Trek" shuttlecraft melded with a deep sea explorer with pincer-like arms_ is needed just to get within working distance of the rock. That craft would have to be big enough for astronauts to live in for a week or two. They'd still need a larger habitat for the long term.

It would take half a year to reach an asteroid, based on current possible targets. The deep space propulsion system to fly such a distance isn't perfected yet. Football-field-sized solar panels would help, meaning the entire mothership complex would be fairly large. It would have to protect the space travelers from killer solar and cosmic ray bursts. And, they would need a crew capsule, maybe two, for traveling between the asteroid complex and Earth.

And all those parts – mini-spaceship, habitat/living area, crew capsule, solar arrays and propulsion system – would have to be linked together in the middle of space, assembled in a way like the International Space Station but on a smaller scale.

Beyond all those obstacles, NASA doesn't even know which asteroid would be the best place to visit.

All this has to be ready to launch by 2025 by presidential order.

"This is the big step," said Kent Joosten, chief architect of the human exploration team at Johnson Space Center. "This is out into the universe, away from Earth's gravity completely... This is really where you are doing the `Star Trek' kind of thing."

It has the dreamers of NASA both excited and anxious.

"This is a risky mission. It's a challenging mission," said NASA chief technology officer Bobby Braun. "It's the kind of mission that engineers will eat up."

This is a matter of sending "humans farther than ever before," said NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver. It is all a stepping stone to the dream of flying astronauts to Mars in the mid 2030s.

"I think it is THE mission NASA should embrace," said University of Tennessee aerospace professor John Muratore. "To be successful at this mission, you've got to embrace all of the technologies that you need for Mars."

Critics, including former Apollo astronauts and flight directors, have blasted President Barack Obama for canceling George W. Bush's plan to return astronauts to the moon. They dismiss talk of asteroid visits.

But that's because NASA has not done a good job of outlining the fascinating details and explaining why it is important, said astronomer and former astronaut John Grunsfeld.

"NASA doesn't have a story right now," said Grunsfeld, deputy director at the Space Telescope Science Institute. "Exploration is nothing if not the articulation of a great story."

The story begins with why NASA would want to go to an asteroid. The agency has sent small spacecraft off to study asteroids over the years and even landed on one in 2001. Just last week, a space probe began orbiting a huge asteroid called Vesta, which lies beyond Mars.

Scientifically, an asteroid is a remnant from the birth of the solar system, offering clues about how our planetary system began. Logistically, NASA wants to go to Mars, but that is distant and more difficult. So the argument is that going to an asteroid is a better testing ground than returning to the moon.

The reason NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and others give is that this mission could save civilization. Every 100 million years or so an asteroid 6 miles wide – the type that killed off the dinosaurs_ smacks Earth, said NASA Near Earth Object program manager Donald Yeomans.

If NASA can get astronauts to an asteroid, they can figure out a way of changing a potential killer's orbit. They'll experiment with the safe one they land on, Braun said.

One joke going around is that dinosaurs couldn't stop catastrophe because they didn't have a space program.

"One of the statements going to an asteroid will make is that humans are smarter than dinosaurs," Grunsfeld said.

If you are going to reroute a killer asteroid, first you have to know one is coming and where it is now. And that's also a problem for NASA's mission. Astronomers figure there are about 50,000 asteroids and comets larger than 300 feet in diameter and they only know where fewer than 1 percent of them are, Yeomans said. NASA is focusing on rocks that size or larger that would come relatively close to Earth in the 2025 time frame.

At the moment, there are only a handful of asteroid options and they all have names like 1999AO10 or 2009OS5. NASA deputy exploration chief Laurie Leshin figures NASA will have to come up with, not just more targets, but better names.

Getting to one will be even tougher.

Huge powerful rockets are needed to launch spacecraft and parts out of Earth orbit. NASA promises to announce its design idea for these rockets by the end of the summer and Congress has ordered that they be built by 2016. It will take two or three or maybe even more launches of these unnamed rockets to get all the needed parts into space.

The crew capsule is the farthest along because NASA is using the Orion crew ship it was already designing for the now dead moon mission and repurposing it for deep space. NASA has already spent $5 billion on Orion.

Once in space, the ship needs a propulsion system to get it to the asteroid. One way is to use traditional chemical propulsion, but that would require carrying lots of hard-to-store fuel and creation of a new storage system, Joosten said.

Another way is to use ion propulsion, which is efficient and requires less fuel, but it is enormously slow to rev up and gain speed. It would also require an electrical ignition source, thus the giant solar power wings.

If NASA goes to ion propulsion, the best bet would be to start the bulk of the ship on a trip to and around the moon without astronauts. That would take a while, but if no one is on it, it doesn't matter, Joosten said. Then when that ship is far from Earth, astronauts aboard Orion would dock and join the rest of the trip. By this time, the ship would have picked up sufficient speed and keep on accelerating.

Orion isn't big enough for four astronauts to live on for a year. They would need a larger space habitat, a place where they can exercise to keep from losing bone strength in zero gravity. They would need a place to store food, sleep and most importantly a storm shelter to protect them from potentially deadly and radiation-loaded solar flares.

Much of the habitat could be inflatable, launched in a lightweight form, and inflated in space. On Friday, NASA announced a competition among four universities to design potential exploration habitats.

Meanwhile NASA is pursuing its concept for a mini-spaceship exploration vehicle, about the size of a minivan. And it's planning an underwater lab for training, an effort to mimic an asteroid mission's challenges, Joosten said.

Leshin notes 2025 is not that many years away: "There's a lot of things we need to invent and build between now and then."

___

Online

NASA animation of a possible asteroid mission: http://1.usa.gov/pMFyay

NASA's exploration office: http://1.usa.gov/nV6ZPn

NASA's Dawn mission to the asteroid Vesta: http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

HOUSTON — With the space shuttle now history, NASA's next great mission is so audacious, the agency's best minds are wrestling with how to pull it off: Send astronauts to an asteroid in less tha...
HOUSTON — With the space shuttle now history, NASA's next great mission is so audacious, the agency's best minds are wrestling with how to pull it off: Send astronauts to an asteroid in less tha...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 678
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
02:34 PM on 08/14/2011
Why not do both through private industries...Moon & Asteroid?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ancientuno
11:20 PM on 07/30/2011
How about using the money to send someone to a asteroid and spend it on the problems we have here in the US. Course that might sound to much like common sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CatesA
desperately seeking moderator approval
02:51 AM on 07/28/2011
I'm more on the "let's go back to the moon," side of things.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PerotVentuSheehCarte
05:23 PM on 07/26/2011
can't wait to see those close-up pics
of all that stuff we left on the moon(!)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greatest Darthfruit
So, you the brains of this outfit, or is he?
04:29 PM on 07/25/2011
now the U.S. is invading asteroids???
04:29 PM on 07/25/2011
This is very cool! I wrote a blog post about this and space exploration in general. Take a look! http://gracie18515.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/dear-humankind-so-its-possible-you-may-all-die-love-nasa/
02:56 PM on 07/25/2011
That's Obama's fault ... It looks like a giant potato. I wanna open it and put gravy in it... Sorry I missed breakfast
07:11 AM on 07/26/2011
mmmmmm...giant potato...gravy...aaaarrrggghhh...
02:27 PM on 07/25/2011
Why not land on Ceres? (I think that is how it's spelled) it's the largest asteroid out there, it has enough gravity to make it round so it might be easier to get around it. It is further than Mars but it is still an asteroid and would allow us to test engines on how fast we can get to Mars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downix
04:04 PM on 07/26/2011
Ceres is also on a different orbital plane than both Earth and Mars, makes getting to it much more difficult than even Mars.
08:58 PM on 07/26/2011
ahh, i did not know that
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Magruder
Administrator, Metro Issues :: Louisville
01:23 PM on 07/25/2011
Instead, let's put all this money and know-how into the amazing robotic and telescopic programs that are bearing all sorts of scientific fruit. Unless we have a truly compelling reason for manned spaceflight, I say let's not do that for now. I don't think preventing an asteroid collision is compelling enough -- human civilization is mere thousands of years old, and in the context of potential collisions, I'd say we have virtually nothing to be concerned about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WheresMyParty
Wear cardigans responsibly.
01:21 PM on 07/25/2011
Perhaps it makes more sense to redirect the money for this project into detecting dangerous asteroids we don't know about yet. I believe we already know how to alter their orbits, given enough time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downix
01:38 PM on 07/25/2011
We do? Last time I checked, only hollywood seems to think we do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WheresMyParty
Wear cardigans responsibly.
01:41 PM on 07/25/2011
I've heard some pretty compelling propositions by scientists, such as sending satellites into orbit around these dangerous asteroids in a way that alters their trajectory slightly over time...time being the main factor. That's all I'm saying.
GonzoFactor
Rationality and rationalization are not the same
01:59 PM on 07/25/2011
Check further. There are several proposals out there that make pretty good sense, most involving induction of outgassing as a super low-level propulsion source that could make small changes over a period of months or years.
12:57 PM on 07/25/2011
The 51st state...Asteroid 1f5f3f4f3514f6814f34f684f Yah!!!!

Better send a pollster out with the astronauts so we can start the 2028 campaign.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Arrech
NY, NY
12:53 PM on 07/25/2011
Bichelle Machmann's nipple.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
longnow
OWS vs Citizens United
12:45 PM on 07/25/2011
Even right wing sci-fi fans like Glenn Reynolds have been
in favor of going to asteroids for all the mentioned reasons
but mainly for mining. Forget origins of the universe,
how about for hitchhiking to Mars? Since it's an Obama
initiative his party, the Republican party, will have no trouble
defunding the idea on the grounds that it's too expensive but
also b/c Obama wants to privatize parts of the space program
for many reasons one of which might be to get it away from the
conservative and fundamentalist South whose only use for
NASA is as a convenient employment agency to fill
with loyalist hacks whose only job is to supervise scientists
and keep them from publishing anything so radical and crazy
as climate change. Carbon dating? What's that, a social network?

Did the article mention non-chemical fuels? That's another
no-no. Privatizing the space program was one of the themes
of many of the great Stephen Baxter novels like Manifold Space.
photo
Progress2342
Liberal, Atheist Science Teacher
12:40 PM on 07/25/2011
A mission to an asteroid wouldn't only be a big step in our journey into space, but will also be an enormous economic boon to the US. Asteroids are tremendously rich in nickel and copper; in fact, one type of metallic asteroid can contain as much copper as the world uses in three years. If we develop asteroid mining technology, we'd be able to get most of our copper from space, and lighten the environmentally destructive mining on our own planet.

However, we shouldn't discount a return mission to the moon. A launch base on the moon would be good because the moon's lower gravity would allow cheaper launches with less fuel. Also, the moon is rich in water. This water can be seperated into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, both of which are essential components in rocket fuel. The moon could become a rocket's gas station.
12:35 PM on 07/25/2011
Wow, NASA. Way to pick something that nobody will care about.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aleks Hunter
Keep your greedy Mitt off our country!
12:39 PM on 07/25/2011
Until a few astronomers track one heading to your back yard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Magruder
Administrator, Metro Issues :: Louisville
01:25 PM on 07/25/2011
And chances are, that won't happen in thousands of human lifetimes.