This is an old article (January 2013) and is very interesting, but substantially out of date regarding a story that has developed a lot. The concept, as indicated in the article, was developed by a KISS (Keck Institute) study group, which is a fancy way of saying about 30 scientists/technologists who gathered in a room at Caltech to think up some new mission concepts.
The concept caught some tailwind -- from the manned side of NASA -- and HQ started talking about it as a possible mission concept that would be a step on the manned roadmap. Such fast uptake of a mission concept is incredibly rare.
Then the larger asteroid science community took interest, and was somewhat disgruntled because the concept had not been vetted by the community at large. Controversy ensued throughout 2013 -- partly centered on selection of an asteroid -- here is a good summary: http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/07/nasa-warned-go-slow...
Such work could help develop ways to use asteroid material for construction or spaceship fuels, making the captured asteroid a stepping stone for human missions to larger asteroids and eventually to Mars.
This has nothing to do with Mars. NASA's current political climate is to say that Mars is their goal and everything is a stepping stone towards it, but this isn't providing any of the key technologies we need for a manned Mars mission (heavy lift, artificial G, Mars landing craft).
EDIT: Not that this is without value. But sell it on its own merits. Saying "we need to mine asteroids to go to Mars" is making it harder to go to Mars.
They're not saying that we need to mine asteroids to go to Mars, more like the experiences and new technologies involved will add a great deal of value to all future missions, including any potential missions to Mars.
> this isn't providing any of the key technologies we need for a manned Mars mission
It would give a really good reason to dust off NERVA, the engine tech Nasa planned to use for a Mars mission in the '70s. Safe, too. NERVA for pushing asteroids around would keep the prototype engines far away from both astronauts and Earth.
I thought artificial gravity was science fiction. Is that seriously being studied? I'm guessing they just are going to spin some kind of space capsule ala Space Odyssey 2001? What else would they be doing? Not generating any kind of artificial gravitational waves with a magical flux capacitor.
Why go all that way (to the asteroid belt) and back, and stop two doors down? Bring it into earth orbit! Or is that not politically correct? Because the risks are indistinguishable.
They're not going all the way out to the asteroid belt, 1999 AO10 orbits between Venus and just beyond Earth's orbit. As for the risks there's significantly less expensive equipment in Lunar orbit and the distance from Earth and Earth orbit would make an abort simpler.
Having it in Earth orbit is no great challenge - better to have it further out of the gravity well to be a better staging post, and there's more to be learned from having to go back and forth to it further out.
Look at the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. Each one was specifically designed to learn something new that was essential for the Moon landing. This seems designed for maximum learning and not just for the individual challenge.
I think you have a warped sense of what "politically correct" means. Just based on how many times I've seen misuse of the term from friends and people on the internet, I give it 90% odds that you're a Republican. :)
First off I have to admit I know practically nothing about this but wouldn't there be some very serious risks to doing this (Edit: If it's only 7m across I'm guessing it wouldn burn up in the Earth's atmosphere so probably poses limit risk to us in the form of an impact)? If there are it raises some serious questions about how humanity decides whether or not to allow NASA or any other space agency to go ahead with such a plan.
I have to say, towing giant space-rocks around and getting them to follow a planned trajectory also sounds like a damn impressive weapon, if someone wants to use it that way.
I'm not saying it's not worth doing; I'm just saying when humans see ___ can be done, enough of them get the idea of weaponizing ___ and we should keep that in mind.
Perhaps we should simultaneously consider what defenses could be put in place ... this has the benefit of being useful planetary defense against "natural" earth-impacting rocks, too.
It can be done by robot, it several new abilities, it acts as a staging post for deep space missions, it lets NASA examine an asteroid close up and repeatedly, and it can be mined, again demonstrating abilities needed for deep space missions and for long-term possibilities for resource acquisition and management.
This is Step A, where Step Z is one of "save the planet from a world-killing asteroid" or "everyone gets a solid gold toilet" (or "a few people get solid gold toilets larger than the existing moon")
The earth doesn't have an unlimited supply of resources. Asteroids are literally loaded with minerals. At some point we are going to deplete the earth and will have to start looking to the skies to get what we need.
[+] [-] hornetblack|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/274
[+] [-] mturmon|12 years ago|reply
The concept caught some tailwind -- from the manned side of NASA -- and HQ started talking about it as a possible mission concept that would be a step on the manned roadmap. Such fast uptake of a mission concept is incredibly rare.
Then the larger asteroid science community took interest, and was somewhat disgruntled because the concept had not been vetted by the community at large. Controversy ensued throughout 2013 -- partly centered on selection of an asteroid -- here is a good summary: http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/07/nasa-warned-go-slow...
The concept is now called the "asteroid initiative" and I think it is also associated with enhancing NEO detection. The web site is here: http://www.nasa.gov/asteroidforum/#.U151pF7fPRo
[+] [-] danielweber|12 years ago|reply
This has nothing to do with Mars. NASA's current political climate is to say that Mars is their goal and everything is a stepping stone towards it, but this isn't providing any of the key technologies we need for a manned Mars mission (heavy lift, artificial G, Mars landing craft).
EDIT: Not that this is without value. But sell it on its own merits. Saying "we need to mine asteroids to go to Mars" is making it harder to go to Mars.
[+] [-] Zikes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keenerd|12 years ago|reply
It would give a really good reason to dust off NERVA, the engine tech Nasa planned to use for a Mars mission in the '70s. Safe, too. NERVA for pushing asteroids around would keep the prototype engines far away from both astronauts and Earth.
[+] [-] leorocky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtkwe|12 years ago|reply
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1999+AO10&orb=1 (Requires Java applet to view)
[+] [-] ColinWright|12 years ago|reply
Having it in Earth orbit is no great challenge - better to have it further out of the gravity well to be a better staging post, and there's more to be learned from having to go back and forth to it further out.
Look at the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. Each one was specifically designed to learn something new that was essential for the Moon landing. This seems designed for maximum learning and not just for the individual challenge.
[+] [-] jarin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okasaki|12 years ago|reply
Once it's in orbit around the moon it's not going anywhere.
[+] [-] BrandonMarc|12 years ago|reply
I'm not saying it's not worth doing; I'm just saying when humans see ___ can be done, enough of them get the idea of weaponizing ___ and we should keep that in mind.
Perhaps we should simultaneously consider what defenses could be put in place ... this has the benefit of being useful planetary defense against "natural" earth-impacting rocks, too.
[+] [-] user080|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crapiola|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ColinWright|12 years ago|reply
Also, why not?
[+] [-] kumbasha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarin|12 years ago|reply
It's a very high "bang for the buck" mission.
[+] [-] weavie|12 years ago|reply