NASA's Greatest Challenge: Sending Astronauts to an Asteroid

[bananas]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/187024/20110726/nasa-asteroid-mission-nasa-asteroids-mars-mission-humans-landing-on-mars.htm

NASA's Greatest Challenge: Sending Astronauts to an Asteroid
July 26, 2011 11:44 AM EDT

<snip>

Now that NASA has officially terminated its shuttle program, the asteroid initiative has become a central piece of its space exploration efforts. But is also represents a feat of technical prowess so far unparalleled in NASA's history -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden called it "the hardest thing we can do," and Kent Joosten, chief architect of the human exploration team at Johnson Space Center, called it a 'Star Trek' kind of thing."

<snip>

The lack of gravity on an asteroid raises the risk of astronauts ricocheting off, leading engineers to weigh the possibility of astronauts floating just above an asteroid with jetpacks, or while to tethered to a smaller ship. The ship transporting astronauts there would also need to be able to accommodate a mission that would last about half a year.

<snip>

Then there is the scenario envisioned in disaster movies like Armageddon. Giant asteroids have struck the earth every several hundred thousand years, including the six-mile wide one believed to have obliterated the dinosaurs, and NASA is currently tracking more than a thousand potentially dangerous asteroids. So the ability to land on one, or get near enough to alter its course, "would demonstrate once and for all that we're smarter than the dinosaurs and can avoid what they didn't," said White House science adviser John Holdren.

edit to add: the article points out that this is a stepping-stone to Mars.

[S_E_Fudd]

1. It would be cool...but I don't really support this...

A permanent presence on the moon would be a better next step. A space infrastructure needs to be built up, colonization of low earth orbit then the moon. I don't really see the benefit of going to an asteroid other than just being cool. Geologically speaking there is no real need, there won't be a permanent presence there. I understand it gets us practice flying humans beyond moon orbit, but it seems to me this could be better accomplished from a base on the moon.

[bananas]

6. I support it, Bush's moon program set us way back

To pay for his moon base program, he cancelled the shuttle, ISS, and unmanned science programs.
But Ares and Constellation fell behind schedule and overbudget, so they cancelled more science programs to focus on the moon program. Even parts of the moon program were cancelled, including the nuclear power plant for the lunar base.
By the time Obama came in, Ares and Constellation were so far behind schedule, the ISS would be de-orbited before they were ready. But SpaceX and others would have rockets and capsules available in time, and Bigelow already had two Mars transhabs in orbit.

[sudopod]

7. Think mining.

If we can wrangle a few into a reachable position, our raw materials problem is solved. :)

[Johonny]

9. why have a base on Mars?

What would be the point of colonizing the Earths Orbit? What advantage does Earths orbit have compared to the surface of Earth. We have a really hard time living on the place we evolved to live on. All our experience living in space has shown us that space colonization is a dream until we can solve our human problem right here on planet Earth.

Going to a near neighbor we people is a stepping stone if you ever want people to visit other bodies outside the Earth moon system. It certainly a sane rational bold step for NASA. Is it scientifically vital? No. But if you are going to have manned missions it is certainly a worthy manned mission and doesn't fall into the fantasy trap that is space colonization.

[Renew Deal]

2. Wouldn't the "hardest thing to do" be to fly into a black hole?

That could be interesting.

[sudopod]

8. Nope.

The hardest thing to do near a black hole is not fly into it. ;)

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Democrats have puny goals: Rick Perry announced he'll land the first

man on the Sun.

[HubertHeaver]

4. I read that headline as "Astronauts on a steroid".

My eye exam is next week.

[laconicsax]

5. Seems to me that landing on Ceres would be a good option.

Even though there's very little gravity, the escape velocity is still over 1000 mph.

[Phoonzang]

10. I'm pretty sure Ceres is way, way farther than they're thinking of going

They're looking for a near earth asteroid. I mean, if we go to Ceres, we might as well stop at Mars (or at least it's moons) on the way.

[laconicsax]

11. I like to think big.

A base on Ceres would have significant advantages for exploration of the outer solar system.