E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception shows astronauts practicing for asteroid exploration on an underwater rock wall.
A NASA team is going underwater this week in the Florida Keys to lay the groundwork for the space agency's first simulated journey to an asteroid.
Sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid ranks as one of the top goals for NASA's retooled vision for space exploration. A year ago, President Barack Obama told NASA to gear up to take on such a mission by the year 2025. Up to that time, NASA had been focusing on a return to the moon — which means that the agency had to retool its mission plans. This week's engineering tests, organized by NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, or NEEMO, will help NASA get ready to set off for its new target.
"Even experts don't know what the surface of an asteroid is going to be like," NEEMO project manager Bill Todd said today in a news release. "There may be asteroids that we don't even know about that we'll be visiting. So we're figuring out the best way to do that."
The center of this week's operations is the Aquarius Underwater Laboratory near Key Largo, Fla. "We are now trying to understand the nuts and bolts of what it might take to do a spacewalk on an asteroid or on the moons of Mars," NASA astronaut Mike Gernhardt, a member of the NEEMO team, told me today.
The underwater team isn't working from the Aquarius habitat itself. That part of the simulation will come later. Instead, Gernhardt and his NEEMO teammates are jumping off the deck of a ship, heading down to depths of about 60 feet in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and practicing their spacewalking skills on an assortment of boulders and rock walls.
"We've created our own mini-asteroid under the water," Gernhardt said.
The aim is to determine which tools and techniques work best for asteroid exploration. NASA has gotten quite familiar with microgravity operations on the International Space Station, and traveling around the moon or Mars doesn't pose all that much of a challenge, gravity-wise. In a sense, making your way around an asteroid combines the worst of both worlds: Most asteroids are so small, it's virtually like working in zero-G. But unlike the space station, there are no built-in handholds or railings. "We have no control over what this asteroid looks like," Gernhardt said.
NASA
In this illustration, astronauts on a Space Exploration Vehicle nestle up against an asteroid and use jetpacks to move around the surface.
NASA
In this artist's conception, an astronaut uses a network of anchors and tethers to move across an asteroid.
Should astronauts hammer in anchors as they make their way across an asteroid's surface? Should they be anchored to a boom stretching out from their spaceship? Or should they use jetpacks to fly freely just a few inches away from the asteroid? Gernhardt and his colleagues will be trying out all three techniques.
"What we're trying to do is fill in the thousand bits of knowledge to bring this from the artist's concepts to reality," he said.
Here are some of the tools the NEEMO team is testing:
- A 27-foot-long, 300-pound boom that could telescope out from a spaceship (or, for the purposes of the simulation, from a piloted submersible) and lock onto a rocky surface.
- A smaller, 20-pound boom that can be anchored at either end, to be used like a handrail to help get around the surface being explored.
- A dual-thruster backpack that can be used underwater to simulate how a jetpack like NASA's current SAFER system would work in outer space.
- Soil-sampling aids, such as a clamshell grabbag that can scoop up samples, and a large plastic bag that can be stretched over rock outcroppings to keep chipped-off samples from floating away.
"Some of the tools that we developed probably won't work very well at all, but as we work down there we'll probably get ideas for better ways to do things," Gernhardt said.
The knowledge gained during this week's tests will be applied to the planning for a full-up mission simulation in October. That's when NASA's "aquanauts" will take up residence in the Aquarius habitat and practice going out in submersibles to explore underwater asteroids. Mission planners will apply the lessons learned in the Florida Keys in other training environments, including NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, Air Bearing Floor and virtual-reality lab as well as the International Space Station.
"It's a bittersweet moment as we wind down the shuttle and the space program as we've known it for the past 30 years," Gernhardt said. But he takes some consolation in the fact that the effort being devoted to NEEMO will pay off on the space station and on other worlds, ranging from near-Earth asteroids to the moon and Mars.
"It's exciting to be working with this great team that we've put together here to develop the tools for future space exploration," Gernhardt said. To keep up with this week's activities, check in with this NEEMO webcast as well as the @NASA_NEEMO Twitter account and the NEEMO Facebook page.
More about asteroids and aquanauts:
- Asteroid goal is riskier than the moon
- Gallery: Seven out-of-this-world destinations
- First step for asteroid mission: Pick the right rock
- Undersea lab serves as inner-space station
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Of all the ideas to practice, second to placing handrails should be drilling in and securely attaching multiple thrusters. I feel that if we are to travel to an asteroid the overarching main goal should be an effort to understand how best to save earth from impacts of these kinds of objects. The simple answer is to just change the course or speed of an asteroid so that it will not impact the Earth. I think if we have time to send people to the doomsday rocks then we could attach small thrusters with large fuel tanks and some kind of communication antenna so that we can basically take control of the rock (basically nudge it on command). Attaching the thruster to the asteroid with much extra fuel gives us the added safety net, we could nudge the asteroid into the sun or another planet or just maintain a safer orbit. Attaching multiple thrusters and antennae to asteroids should be a goal of any asteroid mission (in my opinion).
I like the idea, but given the capabilities at our immediate disposal if an imminent threat arose, it would probably be easier and more effective to detonate one or more nuclear explosions along side of an asteroid... far enough way that you are not breaking it up, but close enough to alter it's course.
Since many asteroids are believed to be nothing more than "rubble piles"... many smaller pieces of rock held together by weak gravitational forces... the densities might be too low for thrusters of any kind to be effective? Also, rotation could be a problem. The idea just seems much more complicated, and the thrust far less than what could be provided by a well placed nuke or nukes.
Didn't NASA forget one tiny detail? How the H are they going to get to an astroid? The shuttle fleet is dead Jim!
So here we are in debt up to our eyeballs and astronauts are practicing for a mission that will not happen in their lifetimes! This is exactly the kind of idiocy the government needs to stop. You could fund an entire school system on what the space suits used in the practice costs. But no we have to have people bopping around a rock in a pool. Using Scuba to climb a rock face in the ocean, at this stage, is all that is needed. Are we forgetting we will be using Russian (former soviet union) designed space balls to work the ISS until 2020 when that multibillion dollar edifice complex will be allowed to burn up in the atmosphere. It would make much more sense to use it as a staging station for solar energy generation for microwaving back to earth - clean energy - no dependency on oil- sort of common sense fiscal responsibility. ARE YOU LISTENING WASHINGTON!
Shuttle couldn't get to an asteroid - it's for low Earth orbit only; hence the need for something new.
Using the ISS for transmitting microwaves to Earth for electrical power is not at all practical. Such a scheme would only work from geosynchronous orbit - 20,000 some miles further out than where the ISS resides.
I'd bet cash money that SpaceX will be flying to the ISS by the end of 2012.
We already spend almost $900 billion on education in this country* every year, or 5000% more than we spend on NASA. Do you feel that throwing more money at education will measurably change results? Do you believe that, after spending almost a trillion dollars this year on education, that the cost of one more space suit is what we need to make our skools near-perfect?
(*2010: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2010_0.html)
One day an asteroid WILL hit the Earth. It is not a matter of "if" - it is only a question of "when". This is EXACTLY the type of research that NASA must do, and something that may - with no exaggeration - "save the world".
We need to make it an international policy that no asteroid large enough to reach the Earth's surface should be allowed to pass within the orbit of our Moon, without the international community taking action to deflect or slow down this kind of deadly asteroid, so it no longer potentially threatens our world. In order to do this, our international community needs to create a future arsenal of Deep Space Ballistic Missiles (DSBMs) armed with thermonuclear warheads which can be used to intercept these rogue asteroids and comets which potentially threaten our world. If every nation pays its fair share of the cost for creating and maintaining this Earth defensive system, along with the cost of an early warning system for alerting us of any potential threat in time, then the cost should be easily affordable by every nation on this Earth. An international tax of 1/10 of one percent GDP per nation should more than cover the cost of defending our Earth against these rogue bodies in space. I strongly urge our world to do this as soon as they possibly can. Otherwise the cost to our world could one day be truly astronomical. - RC
Rick, nuclear weapons are probably the worst way to deal with a potential asteroid impact.
I say "probably" because we have not yet done enough research on asteroids to know what options would work.
The problem with hitting an asteroid with an incoming nuke is that, instead of being hit by one really (really!) big rock, we would be hit by hundreds (thousands?) of city-sized rocks. Rather than being hit by a bullet, we'd be blasted by a shotgun. We're dead either way.
Hitting an asteroid with a nuke doesn't make the rock "disappear"; the material is still all there. And if, as we suspect, a large portion of asteroids are not a single monolithic rock, but is more like a rubble pile that is clumped together, a nuclear blast would be simply absorbed and the rubble pile would just re-assemble itself.
We must know what these things are made of, and how they are put together. Then, and only then, can we devise a way to keep them at a safe distance. To do that we have to go there.
Also, your suggested budget of 1/10 of one percent of global GDP to fund such a project is way more than is required; your suggested contribution would yield $582 billion each year, or about 20x more than we now spend on every space program on this planet. Knock a few zeros off of that and we would have a comprehensive asteroid program.
I have previously proposed that we use a rocket with a nuclear warhead to deflect or slow down these rogue asteroids in space, by spinning this DSBM assembly around prior to impact with the asteroid, so the rocket assembly weighing several tons is actually in between the asteroid and the nuclear warhead, and then exploding the nuclear warhead in order to vaporize the rocket assembly and thereby create an inertial fireball effect which would gently impact the asteroid over the entire forward surface of the asteroid. The resulting gentle nudge should prevent the nuclear warhead from breaking up the asteroid, in case several DSBMs are need to adjust the speed of the approaching asteroid, depending upon its mass and proximity to Earth. (We could also adjust the cost to each nation down to 1/100 of one percent of GDP.) - RC
Blame it on the Boomer Generation. After all didn't the Boomer Generation cause the Anti-Vietnam protest's that led to the U.S. pulling out of Vietnam? Don't blame the horse where your the one holding the reign's.
dwighthuth,
Man, what lousy spelling / grammar! You're missing a comma after after all, its protests, not protest's. It's you're not your, and it's reins, not reign's. If I were you, I wouldn't blame anything on the Boomer generation, but would blame your own generation - mainly for ignorance and lack of being educated, as evidenced by your horrible writing. If you were in an English class I was teaching, I would give you at most a grade of "D."
BoyInDaHood, while I agree with your observations of dwighthuth's spelling and grammar I feel compelled to complain that you didn't make any attempt to comment on the article or the comments to the article, only one person's horrible writing skills. I too get a bit flustered with lousy spelling and whatnot but we should always endeavor to return the conversation to the topic or subject matter. Anyways, it would just be nice to get your input on the underwater exercises these astronauts are performing or the planned mission for which they are preparing. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I'm always wonder why we always want to blow up or shot something, All well and good for some ,But i do have a question. How hard is it to move a object in the vacume of space. We lanch tons from earth with untold amount of rocket power, Why not think of moving a large rock the same way.
It's all a matter of mass, Miles.
Even our biggest rockets huff and puff and push mightily to launch - at most - the mass of a fully loaded semi into orbit.
Asteroids are the mass of mountains - thousands of semi's worth of mass.
The trick to moving an asteroid, perhaps, is not ONE MIGHTY PUSH (a great big explosion) but rather lots of little pushes over a great deal of time.
We could set up a very large mirror that would focus sunlight on a single spot of an asteroid; the melting and outventing would provide a small bit of thrust that would, over years, change the asteroid's orbit enough to miss the Earth. Or, perhaps the same idea, but with a solar-powered laser.
Another suggestion is to park a large satellite right next to the asteroid, and use the sat as a "gravitational tugboat" - the asteroid will be slightly gravitationally attracted to the tug, and while the tug oh-so-slowly backs away, the asteroid will follow.
Or perhaps we could land a few low-thrust ion engines directly on the asteroid (as per Mob's example in the first comment). Ion engines are very thrifty with fuel, and can run continuously for years; for the first year or so the ion thrusters stop the asteroid's rotation (so we can control how it maneuvers), and then they swivel around to vector thrust in the desired direction of travel.
With all of the above options (and other similar plans) we are now "driving" the asteroid, which is a mountain-sized lump of minerals and metals. We can now (with enough time) put it anywhere in the Solar System that we want. Perhaps, even, we could mine it for materials, and give a huge boost to colonizing space.
There is one instance where nukes are the preferred, in fact the only, option: if something is newly discovered, and it's heading our way RIGHT NOW. The patient methods I outline all require years or decades to design, build, and operate.
Asteroids are "findable" with modern astronomical surveys; we don't currently put enough effort into this, but over time we will eventually find, catalog, and evaluate every potentially hazardous asteroid that may some day threaten the Earth.
Comets, however, come screaming in from deep space. They are usually discovered a year or two before they enter the inner Solar System (if they are found at all - we are too often "surprised"). There would not be enough time to deal with such an immediate threat using the more patient remediation methods. In that circumstance the only solution is to fire Bruce Willis out a cannon, riding on a huge warhead and waving his cowboy around whilst yelling "yippie-aye-kai-aye"
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM★Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Michael, is Bruce Willis really a good substitute for Slim Pickens or is it just more favorable to fire Bruce Willis out of a canon? lol
Thank you for articulating the way in which we'd need to stop an asteroids rotation before we have control over it. I can never seem to sum it up quite that succinctly. And I really like how you've managed to turn the "save-the-world" plan into a "save-the-wold-and-mine-the-asteroid-once-we're-done-saving-the-world" plan. I've always thought of both scenarios but I've never actually imagined mixing the two situations. Now that you've illuminated that possibility it seems like the only option after catastrophe was diverted. Why shove the asteroid into the Sun when we control a veritable treasure trove of minerals in space? It makes so much sense.
As for the screaming comets incoming from deep space... When it comes to nuking the things I've heard some interesting theories. CJSKS suggested a well placed nuke in comment 1.1. My question is what about an array of "well placed" nukes. Perhaps 10 or 20 nukes could be used to knock it off it's course and keep knocking it off it's course. Or what about surrounding the comet somehow, would that make any difference in terms of stopping the thing from becoming many deadly masses?
It seems we need some sort of implosive device. Or perhaps the "red matter" from the latest Star Trek movie.
Any day Bruce Willis is shot out of a cannon is a good day. (And I miss Slim.)
As for how to best blow up a comet, we won't know until we try. There are lots of ideas, but we are way too short on data to even guess which may be the best approach(es).
Too true. I would certainly guess that there will need to be a whole host of way to blow up asteroids, since they are not all alike.
It would be interesting to hear the debate that would take place if NASA decided to plan a mission involving nuclear weapons and a deep space object that wasn't a threat. Like you said, we won't know until we try.
*an aside, Slim Pickens supposedly was not told that Dr. Strangelove was a comedy and was only ever given script for scenes he was in so he would play it straight. It is perhaps the only time I'm glad Peter Sellers didn't play that role.
I think it would be interesting to see the SEV turned into an asteroid mining/collection ship. Make it a little bit longer add some engines to the SEV for a larger thrust potential then add SEV controlled rocket motor's to the asteroid itself on the opposite of the SEV and you have an asteroid tug. A tug that could pull asteroids into a safe location to then break them apart and return to Earth for study. Or the asteroids could be broken apart and returned to Earth to be melted down into it's base metal's to be used for building material that would then be sent back to the Moon, Mars or orbital facilities.
I don't think returning the material to Earth to be melted down is the ticket, why not just send the required equipment into space. If you take the industry into space then you don't have to launch material into space that was already in space to begin with.
The aquanaut mission seems a bit premature for a 2025 launch date and more in line with a public distraction too saving a couple of pennies by canceling one of only two human space flight programs on the planet (russia being the soon to be NUMBER ONE AND ONLY manned space flight acivity). Still it is a good idea for a mock up, it would be nice to know if right off the bat if some main concept of the mision is flawed and needs rethinking, this give us almost a decade to rethink the mannerism of an asteroid visit...off the cuff it would seem more realistic to drop a spinning boulder into the ocean and have the team required to rendeavous, attach, collect three specimans a set distance apart, and safely release from said spinning boulder...most of the asteroids are tumbling, wheezing in and out of odd trajectories, and, at this point, of unknown surface stability and or composition....drive a piton into a boulder resting peacefully off the coast of sunny FLA sounds fun, but I don't know if I fully comprehend the difficulty of latching on to a REAL spinning, possibly frozen slushy rock that is outgassing who knows what....As a proponent of private, commecialized space activities, I personally would hope the mettle out the feasibility and possible methods for doing just that (yea, all the above) AND the feasibility and methodolgy of actually CAPTURING a small asteroid for mining explotation or at least, mining activities as it spins, wheezes, swirls and generally repels everything around it. And lest we forget, many a good sci fi novel revolved around races converting big ole space rocks into INTERPLANETARY SPACESHIPS!!....just as well, we surely will quickly realize the economic viability of getting to and from an asteroid, especially in terms of tools needed and raw materials garnered, if the interim base on a suitable intermediary platform, say like the MOON>>>AS ENVISIONED NEARLY FIVE DECADES AGO!!!...jeesh, the stupidity of the people to not demand our government work for us instead of against us is all but baffling, I say all but because there once was a time when americans were hungry for science and technology and progress and innovation and an overall obvious determination to be successful at something without wavering all over the house and senate floor....yea, that was a bit of a number of years ago, and the big difference?...people were a bit more hungry back then, as in food. ok, I'll drop that for now....the big worry is that it is easier for the electorate to continue to cut back on the very things that propelled us forward for so long, continually stalling the neccessary steps required for success and cutting the corners at every chance they can....yea, ok, it is a good idea to practice underwater, given nasa's past training history it is a no brainer. But mark my words, one day, we will all sit back with our google voice translators stuck in our ear and eagerly listen as the great nation of mexico lands on mars, looks around and finds some eggs and announces a new human settlement forming on the red planet called LOS HEUVOS....and of course cheap labour will be needed so all americans looking for hard, difficult work will need their mexican interplanetary passport....what an ugly dream...let's do something about it and SUPPORT the space program and quite denigrating it. In short, quite the damn posturing, ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE AT FAULT. dammit. A moon base is step one, a moon based fuel depot is step two...then the cards all fall into place. Till then we got hacks for long term mission planners and a lot of politicians lying to us again about belt tigtning wilst they line there own damn pockets...yea, you can fool most of the people most of the time....and I see it happening RIGHT NOW!!
No time like the present.
The public doesn't give a rat's ass, hence why the program has had so much difficulty getting funding for the past 30 years. This is not a PR stunt - this is curious people, astronauts, engineers, and scientists, who are trying to learn about what life will be like in a new frontier. You may not agree with the need, or the timing, but do NOT reduce what these fine people are doing to "PR Stunt".
And not China? And how about SpaceX and their just-flown Dragon capsule? I'd take the bet that Dragon will be docked to the ISS by the end of 2012.