[QUOTE]DECIDING to send astronauts to an asteroid is all very well, but now NASA will have to find the few space rocks that are suitable to visit, and work out how to rendezvous safely.
Last month, US president Barack Obama announced the next destination for NASA astronauts would be an asteroid, as early as 2025. The goal would be to gain experience of safely sending humans far from Earth, as a stepping stone towards longer journeys to Mars. Studying the interior of an asteroid up close could also prove important if we ever need to deflect one. Yet achieving the goal will mean overcoming daunting challenges.
Before landing on an asteroid, a spacecraft must enter its orbit, rather than simply whizzing by. That means matching the object's speed and direction of motion, which in most cases would require burning too much rocket fuel to be practical. The only way round this would be if the asteroid's motion happened to be very similar to Earth's at the time of its closest approach.
Even if a space rock passes that test, few have close approaches to Earth in the right time frame, in 2025 or the following few years, points out Martin Elvis of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was to speak on the subject this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division on Dynamical Astronomy in Boston.
A 2009 study led by Paul Abell of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, found only seven asteroids that could be visited between 2025 and 2030, from a list of more than 1200 near-Earth objects ([URL=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123285062/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0]Meteoritics and Planetary Science, vol 44, p 1825[/URL]). New discoveries since that study - which only included asteroids known in 2006 - has increased that number to 42, but many of these could be rejected when further criteria are applied.
The rotation rate of most asteroids is unknown, but any fast-spinning objects will be off limits because they would be difficult for astronauts to hang onto. Combine that with potential mission delays, and it becomes clear that many more candidates are required, Elvis says. "I think people have not appreciated how many you need," he says. "NASA will need to survey huge numbers of asteroids to sift out the limited number of really good ones."
Any fast-spinning objects will be off limits because they would be difficult for astronauts to hang onto
Abell is optimistic that telescopes like the Pan-STARRS observatory that recently opened in Hawaii will expand the list of candidates. "There could be many, many targets to go to," he says.
However, ground-based telescopes are hampered because asteroids in orbits similar to Earth's are often hidden by the glare of the sun, Elvis says. He advocates launching a space telescope to orbit the sun near Venus, from which it could look outward to see asteroids near Earth's orbit - an idea that has long been discussed by astronomers but never funded.
Even if enough suitable targets can be found, there are more problems to overcome. Small, irregularly shaped asteroids have lumpy gravity fields, so an orbiting spacecraft would follow a chaotic trajectory, making navigation much trickier than around Earth or the moon, says Daniel Scheeres of the University of Colorado in Boulder, who has simulated such orbits (see picture).
The surfaces of some asteroids may also be unstable, so astronauts could accidentally set off a landslide, Scheeres says, adding that it would be wise to send robots before humans. "We don't have the sort of data that you might want before you send an astronaut," he says.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627584.400-were-flying-to-an-asteroid--but-which-one.html[/url]
I though that they were flying to us.
We should go Uranus.
I hope we fly to an asteroid filled with useful minerals.
I hope we fly to a very close asteroid to test the systems while using up as little resources as possible.
They will bring back a virus that will kill everyone.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;21652130]We should go Uranus.[/QUOTE]
:hurr:
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;21652080]why an asteroud? just go to jupiter.[/QUOTE]
Some asteroids contain immense amounts of minerals. Even small asteroids can contain several times more metals than have ever been mined and processed in the history of humanity.
Proving we can land on and return from an asteroid - and then making it routine and easy - could open up the possibility for the commercialisation of space. If someone established some kind of mining facility on a mineral rich asteroid they would have access to insanely massive amounts of gold, silver, platinum ect. Greed is almost as good for invention as necessity I'd say, and some money going into space exploration and space vehicles is much needed. It would be pretty boring if we were stuck on this one rock for humanity's entire existence.
no sir you are the asteroids
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;21652681]Some asteroids contain immense amounts of minerals. Even small asteroids can contain several times the metals that have every been mined and processed in the history of humanity.
Proving we can land on and return from an asteroid - and then making it routine and easy - could open up the possibility for the commercialisation of space. If someone established some kind of mining facility on an mineral rich asteroid they would have access to insanely massive amounts of gold, silver, platinum ect. Greed is almost as good for invention as necessity I'd say, and some money going into space exploration and space vehicles is much needed. It would be pretty boring if we were stuck on this one rock for humanities entire existence.[/QUOTE]
Mars is probably full of nice rock.
2025. Feh, we'll never get to Mars.
How the hell will you walk around on an asteroid? The gravity is so low you may as well be floating in space.
Why always in 2025 and 2035?
They said we will land on the moon again in 2020 and mars 2030.
What are they trying to do?
More like 2069 on the moon and Mars in 2107
I thought part of the mission was to change an asteroid's orbit so that just in case we ever are threatened by an asteroid we know how to save ourselves.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;21654137]I thought part of the mission was to change an asteroid's orbit so that just in case we ever are threatened by an asteroid we know how to save ourselves.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the asteroid is alive and if we land on it it will learn that we have living people on it and it will go away from us instead.
Honestly, we should just build the International Moonbase already. The fact alone that it hasn't been made yet, is nothing short of a heinous crime against humanity.
[QUOTE=radioactive;21652802]Mars is probably full of nice rock.[/QUOTE]
Uranus is probably full of nice rock too :xd:
Anyways, this sounds fucking awesome. I just wish i could be one of those guys going out there
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;21652080]why an asteroud? just go to jupiter.[/QUOTE]
Tell me you're kidding... :ohdear:
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;21653232]How the hell will you walk around on an asteroid? The gravity is so low you may as well be floating in space.[/QUOTE]
The suits will probably be equipped with Vernier thrusters, or, if they are feeling innovative, small ion drives for moving around. They'll probably set up poles with small tethers between them and use hooks on the tethers to move around safely.
But that's just me, we should ask NASA.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21655053]The suits will probably be equipped with Vernier thrusters, or, if they are feeling innovative, small ion drives for moving around. They'll probably set up poles with small tethers between them and use hooks on the tethers to move around safely.
But that's just me, we should ask NASA.[/QUOTE]
Asteroids are very rich in Iron. Perhaps they can use magnetic boots?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;21657921]Asteroids are very rich in Iron. Perhaps they can use magnetic boots?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the asteroid, but they might.
[b]COME AND GET PAPA BEAR![/b]
[IMG]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff23/mattsezbo5/armageddon.jpg[/IMG]
That would be cool if they did it.
I vote for 243 Ida, because of the fact that it has a moon.
If anything, we should first establish a colony on Mars. We could use the moon and the Earth's gravity as a slingshot per se to get the spacecraft traveling faster (not Speed of Light fast, but fast). After that, we should either go to Europa or Titan to perhaps discover life. THEN we should do something stupid like this.
Mars is just a teenie bit farther away from earth than an asteroid is
[editline]07:01PM[/editline]
i mean, the asteroids they're aiming for
[QUOTE=Dacheet;21658164]If anything, we should first establish a colony on Mars. We could use the moon and the Earth's gravity as a slingshot per se to get the spacecraft traveling faster (not Speed of Light fast, but fast). After that, we should either go to Europa or Titan to perhaps discover life. THEN we should do something stupid like this.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that asteroids have shittons of minerals in them, right?
If we can bring ourselves to the point to where we can mine asteroids, we will be set on all the metals we will need. Ever.
[QUOTE=Jessesmith1;21653315][IMG]http://28.media.tumblr.com/DybEEF9Cvnzsznf0itWFdog3o1_500.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Reality just punched me square in the face.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
