PDA

View Full Version : Asteroid Redirect Mission” (ARM)



selvaarchi
2014-Apr-04, 09:24 PM
latest progress and new opportunities in NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission” (ARM)

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/02/asteroid-initiative-forum-report/#more-52004


NASA officials discussed latest progress and new opportunities in the agency’s Asteroid Initiative in a March 26 forum with members of the aerospace industry, academia and space enthusiasts. The forum followed a March 21 Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) calling for additional mission concept studies led outside of NASA, with $6 million in potential awards.

NASA’s Asteroid Initiative is comprised of an Asteroid Grand Challenge (AGC) to develop new partnerships and collaborations to accelerate NASA’s existing planetary defense work, and a mission to capture and redirect an asteroid and visit it with astronauts to collect samples.
- See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/02/asteroid-initiative-forum-report/#more-52004

NEOWatcher
2014-Apr-07, 12:49 PM
latest progress and new opportunities in NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission” (ARM)

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/02/asteroid-initiative-forum-report/#more-52004
That article doesn't really say much except that they discussed it. It doesn't explain the content of the topics.
But; It does have some good links to get to the information.
I found this one (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/AsteroidRedirectMission_Update_Panel.pdf) along the way. (27MB, 65 pages PDF)
It's presumably the slides in the asteroid presentation and how it steps up to a Mars mission. It shows a lot more stuff than I've seen in a single location.
There is an interesting chart on page 55 that shows the milestones that will be needed for stepping into a human Mars mission.

(they use "crewed". I'm acclimated to "manned", but can see opposition to that. I like "human" better because in conversation the other sounds too much like "crude")

selvaarchi
2014-Dec-18, 01:51 PM
NASA Delays Asteroid Redirect Mission Concept Selection until 2015. This was announced at a teleconference today. Another bit of information that came out of the teleconference was that they have not decided which launch vehicle to use. The possible rocket choices include NASA's Space Launch System, a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy, or SpaceX's Falcon Heavy.:whistle:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20141217-nasa-delays-arm-selection.html


NASA's efforts to capture a near-Earth asteroid and tow it back to the lunar orbit will have to wait a little bit longer for a final mission concept. In a teleconference today, Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot told reporters he needed more information before he could select one of two options NASA is considering for its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). The decision is now expected to be made early next year, with a Mission Concept Review, or MCR, scheduled for late February.

"While I expected to make a decision today, we really got to the point where I needed to get some more clarification on some areas," Lightfoot said, confirming he met with two teams yesterday to discuss competing ARM concepts. "I've talked to the administrator (Charles Bolden) about it, and he agrees on the areas we need to go look into a little bit, and get a little more detail." Both ARM options involve capturing an asteroid or piece of an asteroid and towing it back to lunar orbit, where it will eventually be visited by astronauts in the early to mid-2020s. The baseline mission concept, Option A, involves capturing an entire asteroid or loosely bound rubble pile with a ten-meter inflatable bag. Option B would send a spacecraft to a larger asteroid between 100 and 500 meters wide, where it would pluck a small boulder off the surface.

selvaarchi
2014-Dec-18, 03:20 PM
NASA experts are evaluating the use of a modified version of the famous Space Shuttle launch and entry suit – or Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES) – for use not only during launch and re-entry for crews riding in Orion, but also for use on spacewalks (EVAs), such as during the proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) in the middle of the next decade.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/12/nasa-evaluting-shuttle-aces-asteroid-eva/


“What we’ve been trying to do with the Asteroid Redirect Mission is to be as efficient as we can with everything that either exists within our toolkit, or with some small modifications,” he noted.

“So one of the things that we started looking at relative to EVAs on this Asteroid Redirect Mission are these launch and entry suits for Orion.”

For the ARM, the astronaut sample retrieval is planned to only utilize the Orion spacecraft. Mr. Stich explained that the EVA suits – currently in use on the International Space Station (ISS) and previously on the Space Shuttle – have some disadvantages given that requirement.

“The Shuttle EVA suits and the ones we use on Station are great for EVA, but they are ‘hard’ and they’re not designed for launch and entry. So it was (a question of) ‘can we use one suit for both?’

“Orion has a certain amount of stowage and a certain amount of volume and we wanted to minimize cost by not flying an airlock. So (we thought) let’s do it all out of Orion – that’s why we ended up with this concept.”

selvaarchi
2015-Feb-17, 02:47 AM
10 Reasons Why an Asteroid Redirect Mission Is Worth Doing - written by a person working on part of the project. I agree with some of the points - see if you do.

http://spacenews.com/op-ed-10-reasons-why-an-asteroid-redirect-mission-is-worth-doing/

NEOWatcher
2015-Feb-17, 06:30 PM
#1 and #10 sound like the same thing.
I agree to the points, but weighing the mission against others is mostly about the trade-offs. I guess this is just to counter all the others.
Some of those points can be accomplished with other types of missions and some of them are just drops in the sea of their ultimate goal.
So; while I agree with them, some of them are pretty weak.

Romanus
2015-Feb-18, 03:23 AM
I've never been a fan of ARM; it's the kind of mission people shoehorn onto hardware they in fact have no idea how to use. The following is strictly my op.

Re:
1.) Yes, it will be there, and it will be no less expensive to launch equipment and men to it. I've been saying this for a while: if we don't want to go beyond the Moon (which this mission very strongly implies), then just go the Moon and cut out this asteroid middleman.
2.) I don't think an asteroid a few meters across is an adequate testbed for the kind of infrastructure that would be truly necessary for ISRU of asteroids in general. I don't see any space-based industrial testbeds on NASA's to-do list; all relevant beginning work will be done on Earth. On an asteroid this size, you're really just talking about have more samples to work with, which brings me to...
3.) The marginal utility of the samples does not scale with size. The Apollo missions brought back 380 kg of rock; would we have learned ten times more from 3800 kg, from the same sites?
4.) I can't see the advantage of maneuvering near an asteroid the size of a car garage in studying deep space habitats, over lunar orbit, L1, or even just LEO. With sizable object and some gravity, maybe. Not the ARM target.
5.) I strongly support research into advanced propulsion, but we could test it on any space mission.
6.) An ARM mission asteroid is too small to pose a threat; it is precisely the harder-to-reach larger bodies that we can't currently tow that we need to find and study. In any event, the maths are sound; we're not going to learn appreciably more by towing an ARM asteroid when we know the options already available to us and how they would work, scaled accordingly.
7.) For all people talk about going to Phobos, only the Russians have ever taken going there seriously (whether they made it or not). Number #7 is an argument for a Phobos mission--preferably an unmanned one that can tell us if there's anything valuable there to begin with--not a pro for ARM, IMO.
8.) See responses #1 and #4.
9.) See responses #4 and #6.
10.) I have to admit, I kind of like the idea of this, but: the Moon is out there. It's permanent. It isn't free, but we can get there minus the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars it would cost for ARM (which still wouldn't cut into costs for getting to the Moon or its hypothetical satellite), money that would be better spent on more probes to small bodies and completing the inventory of PHAs.

Solfe
2015-Feb-18, 03:40 AM
Let start the campaign to save Phobos. We just need to move it a bit back from Mars... for the children. :)

Now that would be a mission.

Romanus
2015-Feb-18, 04:07 AM
^
That's what I'm talking about, LOL.

Noclevername
2015-Feb-18, 06:39 AM
Let start the campaign to save Phobos. We just need to move it a bit back from Mars... for the children. :)


Won't someone please think of the hypothetical children?

Noclevername
2015-Feb-18, 06:48 AM
I think we would benefit more from making space access easier rather than blow the budget on one-shot missions, but it's become increasingly clear that NASA isn't going to do that. Since they are going to keep doing one-shots, might as well be something we haven't done yet.

As for this specific proposal, we may or may not learn anything new from an ARM mission, but it would serve as a proof-of-concept for more ambitious asteroid missions. A core sample would let us learn something new, as our only sample returns so far have been surface dust, so it's not just sampled from the same location but from a different depth on a different asteroid. And more materials to work with does have some limited utility, it lets more labs and scientists study first-hand materials.

Hop_David
2015-Feb-18, 03:10 PM
I've never been a fan of ARM; it's the kind of mission people shoehorn onto hardware they in fact have no idea how to use.

Ah. The "ARM is something for SLS and Orion to do" argument.

Lori Garver is an enthusiastic advocate of ARM. When she was NASA's deputy administrator she was saying she looked forward to working with private entities such as Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries.

Check out this vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHMDI-gFDAY#t=34). At 7 minutes in Garver talks about SLS and Orion. She is one of that program's harshest critics. No, Garver's support of ARM was definitely not at attempt to justify SLS.


Re:
1.) Yes, it will be there, and it will be no less expensive to launch equipment and men to it. I've been saying this for a while: if we don't want to go beyond the Moon (which this mission very strongly implies),

The strong impllication exists only in your imagination. The ability to park hundreds of tonnes of asteroid in the earth-moon neighborhood could be an enabler for going beyond our neihborhood.


then just go the Moon and cut out this asteroid middleman.

I don't see anyone seriously working on a lunar lander. So the "let's skip this distraction and go straight for the moon" argument is silly.

But should there be propellent and infrastructure in high lunar orbit, landing on the moon would be much less difficult.


2.) I don't think an asteroid a few meters across is an adequate testbed for the kind of infrastructure that would be truly necessary for ISRU of asteroids in general.

I believe it could be helpful. It could provide experience learning how to drill, dig and transport material in microgravity.

Look at the authors of the Keck report. Chris Lewicki of Planetary Resources is one of them. They evidently don't think it'd be a useless exercise.



I don't see any space-based industrial testbeds on NASA's to-do list;

Lori Garver had been saying she hoped NASA would be working in cooperation with Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries. I believe such a test bed would be on PR's and DSI's to-do list.


3.) The marginal utility of the samples does not scale with size

Ah. You want to test mining drills and shovels on a 1 gram rock. While PR might have some interest nano technology, I suspect they'd like to try out larger equipment.


4.)
5.) I strongly support research into advanced propulsion, but we could test it on any space mission.

I don't see any other proposals for robust SEP being considered. If we ax ARM it likely won't be developed.



6.) An ARM mission asteroid is too small to pose a threat;

The ARM SEP could impart ~.2 km/s to a small asteroid, enough to park it in the earth moon neighborhood. Deflecting an asteroid would take much less delta V. The vehicles could be helpful in deflecting a Chelyabinsk or Tunguska sized asteroid.

Part of the program is an asteroid search. A search capable of finding 5 meter rocks could also find Chelyabinsk sized rocks.

selvaarchi
2015-Mar-26, 10:28 PM
NASA has now come out with more details on their ARM and what else they hope to do. One important ingredient I do not get a good feel for in the report is how it will be funded. Can anybody here enlighten us?

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/march/nasa-announces-next-steps-on-journey-to-mars-progress-on-asteroid-initiative/index.html?linkId=13125814

NASA Wednesday announced more details in its plan for its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), which in the mid-2020s will test a number of new capabilities needed for future human expeditions to deep space, including to Mars. NASA also announced it has increased the detection of near-Earth asteroids by 65 percent since launching its asteroid initiative three years ago.
For ARM, a robotic spacecraft will capture a boulder from the surface of a near-Earth asteroid and move it into a stable orbit around the moon for exploration by astronauts, all in support of advancing the nation’s journey to Mars.
"The Asteroid Redirect Mission will provide an initial demonstration of several spaceflight capabilities we will need to send astronauts deeper into space, and eventually, to Mars," said NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot. "The option to retrieve a boulder from an asteroid will have a direct impact on planning for future human missions to deep space and begin a new era of spaceflight."

NEOWatcher
2015-Mar-26, 11:29 PM
One important ingredient I do not get a good feel for in the report is how it will be funded. Can anybody here enlighten us?
I don't think anyone, including NASA or the Congress, gets a good feel for how NASA is funded.
NASA comes up with proposals, and Congress allocate funds if they find it worthwhile. Not much more to it.

selvaarchi
2015-Mar-27, 01:21 AM
More information on ARM and also some cost - The cost of the robotic component of ARM — that is, the capture/redirect mission, without any astronaut visits —will be capped at $1.25 billion, not including the launch vehicle.

http://m.space.com/28934-nasa-asteroid-capture-mission-boulder.html

NASA's bold asteroid-capture mission will pluck a boulder off a big space rock rather than grab an entire near-Earth object, agency officials announced today (March 25).
NASA intends to drag the boulder to lunar orbit, where astronauts will visit it beginning in 2025. The space agency decided on the boulder snatch — "Option B," as opposed to the whole-asteroid "Option A" — Tuesday (March 24) during the mission concept review of the asteroid-redirect effort, NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot told reporters during a teleconference today.

selvaarchi
2015-Mar-27, 10:51 AM
Here is another report on the NASA briefing on ARM. When read together it gives a date way beyond the 2025 for US astronauts to vist the boulder around the moon.

I come to this conclusion from the following information.

1) both reports agree the rocket carrying the probe to retrieve the boulder will be launched in 2020.

2) one of the reports state, it will take 2 years to reach the asteroid. Taking us to 2022.

3) another part of one of the report, states it will take 6 years to move the boulder to moon's orbit. That will take us to 2028.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/03/25/nasa-spend-1-billion-move-space-boulder/#more-54951

It will take approximately six years for the ARM robotic spacecraft to move the asteroid mass into lunar orbit. In the mid-2020s, NASA’s Orion spacecraft will launch on the agency’s Space Launch System rocket, carrying astronauts on a mission to rendezvous with and explore the asteroid mass. The current concept for the crewed mission component of ARM is a two-astronaut, 24-25 day mission.

NEOWatcher
2015-Mar-27, 03:20 PM
1) both reports agree the rocket carrying the probe to retrieve the boulder will be launched in 2020.
2) one of the reports state, it will take 2 years to reach the asteroid. Taking us to 2022.
3) another part of one of the report, states it will take 6 years to move the boulder to moon's orbit. That will take us to 2028.
It looks like the 2 years in #2 is included in the total 6 year timeframe. In other words it will take 6 years from launch to get it moved there.

According to this article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/nasa-announces-details-of-its-asteroid-redirection-mission/), they are expecting it to be in moon's orbit by late 2025.

selvaarchi
2015-Mar-27, 06:51 PM
It looks like the 2 years in #2 is included in the total 6 year timeframe. In other words it will take 6 years from launch to get it moved there.

According to this article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/nasa-announces-details-of-its-asteroid-redirection-mission/), they are expecting it to be in moon's orbit by late 2025.
It will be a major challenge to meet that as use of Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) means speed will not be there. Good luck to them and hope that they meet that time frame.

NEOWatcher
2015-Mar-27, 07:03 PM
It will be a major challenge to meet that as use of Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) means speed will not be there. Good luck to them and hope that they meet that time frame.
Why do you think that?
Dawn made it to Ceres in 4 years. If we can get ARM there with a big boost like we did with new horizons, a return should not be a problem.

selvaarchi
2015-Mar-28, 10:58 AM
It looks like the 2 years in #2 is included in the total 6 year timeframe. In other words it will take 6 years from launch to get it moved there.

According to this article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/nasa-announces-details-of-its-asteroid-redirection-mission/), they are expecting it to be in moon's orbit by late 2025.

Below is a report that says that "NASA Langley's Contact and Restraint System (CRS) will provide the legs for the proposed mission spacecraft that will allow surface contact (landing), ascent (push off), and boulder restraint."

Also in the report is "It will take approximately six years after capture to move the asteroid mass into lunar orbit." which agrees with my interpretation of the earlier report.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/prnewswire-space-news.html?doc=201503271602PR_NEWS_USPR_____DC66576&showRelease=1&dir=0&categories=AEROSPACE-AND-SPACE-EXPLORATION&andorquestion=OR&&passDir=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,15,17,34

selvaarchi
2015-Jul-01, 01:26 PM
It is now confirmed that ARM will be a Asteroid Redirect Mission. There was some doubts after some comments made earlier this year. They are also working on 4 possible asteroids but are still on the lookout for more candidates. Final decision will only be made in 2019.

http://spacenews.com/asteroid-redirect-mission-to-redirect-asteroid-after-all/


As for the target ARM asteroid, NASA is considering four, as of June 29. The agency will pick the final target in 2019, Gates said. Currently, NASA’s top choices are:

• 2008 EV5, which for more than a year has been the reference asteroid NASA has used for planning purposes as it hashes out timelines for the robotic redirect portion of ARM.

• Bennu, the target of NASA’s Osiris-Rex asteroid sampling mission launching in 2016.

• Itokawa, the oblong, potato-shaped asteroid the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency collected a sample from in 2010 with its odds-defying Hayabusa probe.

• 1999 JU3, the target of the Hayabusa 2 mission expected to return Japan’s second asteroid sample cache to Earth in 2020.

NEOWatcher
2015-Jul-01, 04:52 PM
It is now confirmed that ARM will be a Asteroid Redirect Mission. There was some doubts after some comments made earlier this year.
It always was an asteroid redirect mission. Nothing has changed. Just the perception of why.
What Johnson was saying is that the primary measures of success and goals of the mission were the technology rather than getting it there for the astronauts to pluck at.

selvaarchi
2015-Oct-28, 12:15 PM
It always was an asteroid redirect mission. Nothing has changed. Just the perception of why.
What Johnson was saying is that the primary measures of success and goals of the mission were the technology rather than getting it there for the astronauts to pluck at.

It is good to read that NASA is making progress with the technology. Enjoy a picture of the robotic sampling arm and capture mechanism to collect a multi-ton boulder :clap: Also there is a 5 minute video on how ARM will work.

http://www.universetoday.com/120243/boulder-extraction-and-robotic-arm-mechanisms-for-nasas-asteroid-redirect-mission-start-rigorous-testing-at-nasa-goddard/


Rigorous testing has begun on the advanced robotic arm and boulder extraction mechanisms that are key components of the unmanned probe at the heart of NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) now under development to pluck a multi-ton boulder off a near-Earth asteroid so that astronauts visiting later in an Orion crew capsule can harvest a large quantity of samples for high powered scientific analysis back on Earth. Universe Today inspected the robotic arm hardware utilizing “leveraged robotic technology” during an up close visit and exclusive interview with the engineering development team at NASA Goddard.

“The teams are making great progress on the capture mechanism that has been delivered to the robotics team at Goddard from Langley,” NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot told Universe Today.

selvaarchi
2015-Nov-14, 11:01 PM
Yet another bit of technology that is being worked on that can be used by ARM.

http://www.popsci.com/company-is-designing-jetpack-technology-for-asteroid-explorers


Pretend you're an astronaut and you need to take a sample of an asteroid. Perhaps you would use a shovel or a hammer and chisel. The problem is that while you're pushing that tool into the rock, there's no gravity holding you in place, and the force makes your body want to float away from the asteroid.

To counterbalance that, Draper is working with MIT to develop hardware that can sense your position is changing using control moment gyroscopes (CMGs), and then use thrusters correct for it.

Michele Carpenter, Draper's principal investigator on the project, told Popular Science in an email that “The CMGs enable a finer level of control by operating continuously. Thrusters aren’t well suited for this function because they are discrete actuators (they need to turn on and off). If an astronaut tried to use them to stay in place, they would repeatedly bounce back and forth while the thrusters turned on and off.”

publiusr
2015-Nov-21, 06:58 PM
That's a bit Rube Goldberg for me. Wrap the thing, brace yourself--and bear down.

selvaarchi
2016-Jan-29, 03:01 AM
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has selected four companies to conduct design studies for a solar-electric-propulsion-based spacecraft for the agency's Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM).

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Companies_selected_to_provide_early_design_work_fo r_Asteroid_Redirect_mission_999.html


The aerospace companies selected for the initial studies include: Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Littleton, Colorado; Boeing Phantom Works, Huntington Beach, California; Orbital ATK, Dulles, Virginia; and Space Systems/Loral, Palo Alto, California.

ARRM is part of NASA's plan for using cislunar space, the region between Earth and moon's orbit, as a proving ground for future human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit, in support of the agency's journey to Mars.

The acquisition strategy for the ARRM spacecraft will leverage commercially available U.S. industry capabilities to reduce costs and cost risk. The strategy includes procurement of the ARRM spacecraft bus through two phases.

The first phase is design work accomplished through studies by U.S. industry working in cooperation with the mission's project office at JPL to support mission formulation.

The second phase, to be awarded via a second competition, will include development and implementation of the flight spacecraft bus by one of the study participants.

selvaarchi
2016-Jan-29, 03:30 AM
NASA still plans to pluck a boulder off the surface of asteroid 2008 EV5, return it to lunar orbit and send a crew of astronauts for a visit in about ten years.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160128-nasa-stays-on-course-arrm-target.html


The ridge-bisected, 400-kilometer-wide asteroid is the "reference target" for the robotic portion of the agency's Asteroid Redirect Mission, ARM, and will likely become the actual destination unless a better candidate is found. The asteroid's orbit is roughly the same as Earth's, orbiting the sun every 343 days.

"We do not envision changing this target, unless something comes up that is of more interest, or something happens unexpectedly," said ARM program director Michelle Gates. Other candidates previously up for consideration were Itokawa, which was visited by Japan's Hayabusa spacecraft in 2005, and Bennu, the target for NASA's OSIRIS-REx sample return probe, which launches later this year.

"We actually selected this target given input from you all," Gates said, addressing scientists at a Small Bodies Assessment Group meeting in Monrovia, California. "We'd like to go to something we haven't been to before."

EV5 last passed Earth in 2008 and won't return until 2023 or 2024. That means launching the retrieval mission in 2020 could get the spacecraft into lunar orbit for an astronaut visit by late 2025. The mission timeline dictates the size and mass of the boulder that will be returned.

galacsi
2016-Jan-29, 09:01 PM
Hum Jason davis from Planetary society made a strange mistake : This is not a 400 Kilometers wide asteroid but a 400 m wide !

It should be obvious there is no such monster among the NEOs !

Wikepedia on 2008 EV5 says
2008 EV5 is an oblate spheroid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid) 400 m (1,300 ft) in diameter.

And wikipedia again : list of biggest asteroids

Largest by diameter

Estimating the sizes of asteroids from observations is difficult due to their irregular shapes, varying albedo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo) (reflectivity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectivity)), and small angular diameter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter#Use_in_astronomy). For example, pure C-type asteroids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-type_asteroid) are much darker than most. Asteroids with only one or two axes measured may have a falsely inflated geometric mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean) diameter if the unknown second and/or third axis is noticeably smaller than the primary axis. Asteroid 16 Psyche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche) has an IRAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAS) diameter of 253 km, yet has a more recent and accurate geometric mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean) of only 186 km.


Name
Diameter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diameter) (km)
(geometric mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean))
Dimensions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions) (km)
Mean distance
from Sun (in AU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_Units))
Date discovered
Discoverer
Class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_spectral_types)


1 Ceres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29)
946±2
965×962×891
2.766
January 1, 1801
Piazzi, G. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Piazzi)
G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-type_asteroid)


4 Vesta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Vesta)
525.4±0.2
572.6 × 557.2 × 446.4 ± 0.2
2.362
March 29, 1807
Olbers, H. W. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Wilhelm_Matth%C3%A4us_Olbers)
V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-type_asteroid)


2 Pallas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Pallas)
512±3
550±4 × 516±3 × 476±3 km[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exceptional_asteroids#cite_note-Carry2009-2)
2.773
March 28, 1802
Olbers, H. W. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Wilhelm_Matth%C3%A4us_Olbers)
B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-type_asteroid)


10 Hygiea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Hygiea)
431±7
530×407×370
3.139
April 12, 1849
de Gasparis, A. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annibale_de_Gasparis)
C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-type_asteroid)


704 Interamnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/704_Interamnia)
326
350×304
3.062
October 2, 1910
Cerulli, V. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenzo_Cerulli)
F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-type_asteroid)



These big rocks they are all in the asteroid belt and rather far from earth.

marsbug
2016-Jan-29, 09:28 PM
Hum Jason davis from Planetary society made a strange mistake : This is not a 400 Kilometers wide asteroid but a 400 m wide !

It should be obvious there is no such monster among the NEOs !
.

As an asteroid mission enthusiast I wasn't sure to be blown away or terrified when I first read the article. When I realised it was probably a mistake Iwas actually a bit more dssapointed than relieved....

selvaarchi
2016-Feb-04, 10:45 PM
The latest hearing before the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee did not have any good news for this mission. To me that is a pity as there is a lot of technology that will come out of this mission which can be used to mine the asteroids.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/consensus-on-the-need-for-a-human-spaceflight-plan-but-not-the-plan-itself


Republican members of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee, Rep, Lamar Smith (R-TX) continued their attacks on the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) as unnecessary and a waste of resources. Democratic members, including the ranking Democrat of the full committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), did not defend ARM, and Edwards said NASA's current Evolvable Mars Campaign strategy does not answer the question of whether an asteroid mission is a necessary element of the humans-to-Mars goal. Johnson and Edwards reiterated their strong support for NASA to produce a roadmap for the future of the human spaceflight program as required by the 2015 NASA Authorization Act that passed the House last year (no further action has been taken).

None of the witnesses offered support for ARM, either, although Young noted that NAC is enthusiastic about the development of Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), which is part of the ARM program. NAC considers SEP to be a critical element of any effort to send humans to Mars and recommended that NASA send an SEP-powered probe all the way to Mars as a test instead of to an asteroid. NAC worries that ARM itself, as a program, will cost more than the $1.25 billion advertised by NASA officials and divert resources from the real goal of humans-to-Mars.

For those interested in the opinions of the three "outside" (non-NASA) experts that presented their views, I have below links to their written testimony (thanks to Leonard David for the links)

Thomas Young

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-TYoung-20160202.pdf

John C. Sommerer

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-JSommerer-20160202.pdf

Paul D. Spudis

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-PSpudis-20160202.pdf

selvaarchi
2016-Feb-20, 01:07 AM
A report released by NASA Feb. 18 found no scientific showstoppers for the agency’s planned Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), but suggested a precursor mission to the selected asteroid could improve the odds of success. What the report does not cover is the political obstacles that it still needs to go through (see post above)

http://spacenews.com/report-suggests-nasa-fly-precursor-to-asteroid-redirect-mission/


The 21-member Formulation Assessment and Support Team (FAST) was chartered by NASA last fall to examine scientific issues involved with the mission to support development of its first element, a robotic spacecraft called the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM). That spacecraft will travel to a near Earth asteroid, grab a boulder from its surface, and return it to cislunar space.

The FAST report examined several topics, with a particular focus on 2008 EV5, the asteroid serving as the notional target of the mission. Those analyses included the presence of boulders on the asteroid’s surface, the strength of the boulders and their cohesion with the surface. It also addressed issues with bringing the boulder back to cislunar space and safety issues for future crewed missions to the recovered boulder.

The report made no specific recommendations or conclusions about the feasibility of the robotic mission, or the overall ARM concept, but did not identify any issues that raised major concerns about the feasibility of the overall mission.

selvaarchi
2016-Feb-25, 12:04 PM
A report commissioned by NASA will help them with the development and design of the robotic portion of the mission, spacecraft, and boulder capture.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Report_Details_Expert_Team_Investigation_of_A steroid_Redirect_Mission_999.html


A new report chartered by NASA provides input to important areas of robotic mission requirements development and explores the science benefits and potential knowledge gain from the agency's Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). NASA will visit an asteroid boulder during the Proving Ground phase of its journey to Mars in cislunar space - the volume of space around the moon featuring multiple stable staging orbits for future deep space missions.

selvaarchi
2016-Feb-26, 03:55 PM
What I was afraid of will likely happen. the republicans have their knives out for ARM.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-ss-t-lays-out-work-plan-for-2016#.VtA5jIgR4-4.twitter


The report says that the committee this year will:

maintain NASA's budget at the FY2016 appropriated level of $19.3 billion;

reduce FY2017 funding for NASA's earth science program to $1.45 billion, the level authorized in H.R. 2039, and reallocate the resulting $471 million to planetary science, heliophysics, Orion, exploration R&D, and exploration ground systems;

reject any proposed cut to SLS and keep it on track for first launch (EM-1, without a crew) in calendar year (CY) 2018 and second launch (EM-2, with a crew) in CY2021; and

prohibit any NASA resources from being spent on the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) and direct NASA instead to conduct pre-formulation studies for a Mars fly mission. The report goes on to note that Near Earth Object (NEO) survey, detection, and characterization are not unique to ARM and "additional NASA resources could be used to help NASA meet the long-standing goals of the Congressionally-mandated George E. Brown, Jr. NEO Survey Program."

marsbug
2016-Feb-26, 05:43 PM
I'll admit ot being a fan of the robotic portion of ARM only. However ARM, Mars, or Moon, none of it will happen as long as the direction is being changed every eight years.

selvaarchi
2016-Mar-04, 10:52 AM
Another year slippage in ARM's schedule. The longer the schedule the greater the risk of it being canceled.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-slips-schedule-of-asteroid-redirect-mission/


NASA has decided to push back the launch of the robotic part of its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) by a year to late 2021 to allow for more time for studies of the mission concept and its key technologies, an agency official said March 2.

At a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s human exploration and operations committee here, Michele Gates, program director for ARM at NASA Headquarters, said the delay in the robotic part of ARM would also postpone a later crewed mission to the boulder the robotic mission would return to cislunar space.

selvaarchi
2016-Mar-17, 12:28 PM
It is wonderful to read how well NASA have structured the ARM's project. Three main categories and within that more breakdowns on what they are doing. Wish they would come out with a similar structure for the journey to Mars:whistle:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/03/nasa-deep-planning-asteroid-redirect-mission/


NASA is now deep into the planning phase for its highly-anticipated mission to redirect a portion of an asteroid into lunar orbit.

The mission will help demonstrate much-needed technologies for the eventual placement of humans on the surface of Mars and keeps with NASA’s current strategy to produce a phased approach to all major aspects of the agency’s in-space objectives.

To this end, ARM consists of a three-pronged mission alignment strategy.

The first phase began two years ago in 2014 with the commencement of the Asteroid Identification Segment of the mission architecture.

The second phase will consist of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission spanning a total of 5 years before the third portion of the mission, the Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission takes hold in 2026.

selvaarchi
2016-Mar-26, 02:55 PM
Now they have added another objective to ARM. With this add on it is less likely to be killed. The add on, to test planetary defense options:D

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/03/nasa-looks-test-planetary-defense-options-arm-mission/


Perhaps the most important aspect of the ARM mission is not its ability to pick up a boulder from the surface of an asteroid and place that boulder in lunar orbit but instead its ability to test planetary defense mechanisms against potentially hazardous NEAs.

According to the ARM Update presentation to the NAC Human Exploration and Operations Committee, “large, hazardous-size asteroid provides representative target for planetary defense demonstration.”

Under this aspect of ARM, the planetary defense demonstration would take place in 2024, assuming a No Later Than December 2021 launch date for ARM, and would occur after the characterization and boulder capture objectives of the mission.

7cscb
2016-Mar-26, 05:46 PM
With this add on it is less likely to be killed.

I hope so. I've wondered why this idea was not pushed harder before.

While the small boulder targeted is nowhere near a mass extinction rock, the exercise seems like a reasonable first step.

IMO, exploring then exploiting the asteroids should easier than the Moon and Mars and should thus take precedence.

Cheers

selvaarchi
2016-Mar-27, 09:54 AM
I hope so. I've wondered why this idea was not pushed harder before.

While the small boulder targeted is nowhere near a mass extinction rock, the exercise seems like a reasonable first step.

IMO, exploring then exploiting the asteroids should easier than the Moon and Mars and should thus take precedence.

Cheers

I thought the use of a chunk(boulder) of the asteroid to increase the weight of the satellite was brilliant.

As for exploiting the asteroids first, I am not so in favor. The moon is only three days away and we have complete control of the duration of the missions. With asteroids, we need to do detailed studies of their orbits before we can launch our missions to it. Take ARM's mission. for example, it will take 5 years from launch to complete it. Then add the extra 3 years to select the asteroid it come to 8 years.

selvaarchi
2016-Apr-17, 01:42 PM
Will this news flash mean we do not have to do ARM. The news flash says there might an asteroid orbiting the moon :o

http://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.my/2016/04/breaking-news-moon-may-have-asteroid.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LatestWorldwideMeteor/meteoriteNews+%28Latest+Worldwide+Meteor/Meteorite+News%29

01101001
2016-Apr-17, 03:06 PM
I see:


It's an ordinary Near Earth Asteroid, Period is 1.96 years, which means it's orbit around the sun take 1.96 earth years, or 715.4 days. It is not in orbit around the moon.

selvaarchi
2016-Jun-18, 03:14 PM
well we do have another candidate now and if we could nudge just a little then we could have another moon or the moon can have a moon of its own :D

http://www.universetoday.com/129467/earth-almost-moon/


Earth’s little quasi-moon has been in its stable orbit for about a century, according to calculations, though it was only spotted on April 27th, 2016, by the Pan-STARRS 1 asteroid survey telescope in Hawaii. Pan-STARRS 1 is operated by the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy and NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office. (Did you know we had a Planetary Defense Coordination Office?)

2016 H03 is small. It’s exact size has not been established, but it’s between 40 and 100 meters (120 and 300 ft.) It’s been around a century, and calculations say it will be around for centuries more.

selvaarchi
2016-Aug-02, 10:23 AM
NASA gives an update on ARM. Main point is launch date has slipped a year due to budget constrains and not technology.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-updates-ambitious-asteroid-redirect-mission/


While no major aspects of the ARM flights have changed in recent months, NASA and its various centers and partners have made considerable progress in understanding the complexities and needs involved in the two halves of the mission.

“ARM has made significant progress over the last year,” stated Ron Ticker, Deputy Program Director for ARM during the recent ARM briefing to the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).

Specifically, scientific payload needs for the robotic portion of the mission (dubbed Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission – ARRM) have begun to materialize, as have the overall planning and pre-launch timeline requirements.

According to Mr. Ticker, “The target launch date [for ARRM] has moved one year to a target launch date in December 2021. And the availability of the asteroid and the SEP-based spacecraft in cislunar space pushes the crewed mission into 2026.”

selvaarchi
2016-Aug-09, 09:19 AM
That slip in launch date by a year, reported in the post above (#3,935) has increased also increased the mission cost and likely has now gone above the cost cap for this mission. A review of the mission has been done but the results are still to be released.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/asteroid-redirect-mission-at-critical-juncture


Three weeks after NASA completed a key milestone review of the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), the agency still has not officially announced the results. A NASA official indicated at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting that the review revealed cost growth, forcing a reexamination of its objectives versus the cost. An Obama Administration initiative, it is at a critical juncture as the House Appropriations Committee denied funding earlier this year and President Obama’s term in office comes to an end in just 5 months.

NASA conducted its Key Decision Point-B, or KDP-B, review of the robotic portion of the ARM project on July 15. At a meeting of NAC’s Human Exploration and Operations Committee (NAC/HEO) on July 25, Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, said the review showed that costs are growing and the agency must evaluate whether to accept the increase or reduce the program’s scope to stay within the cost cap set by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden.

NAC sent recommendations to Bolden in July 2014 and January 2015 expressing concern about this exact possibility – that costs would grow and choices would need to be made about the program’s content. The 2014 recommendation was for NASA to conduct an independent cost and technical assessment of ARM. The 2015 recommendation was for NASA to preserve two key objectives if the program needed to be descoped: development of high power Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) and the ability to maneuver in a low gravity environment in deep space. It went further in April 2015, issuing a finding (but not a recommendation) that instead of demonstrating SEP technology through the ARM program, it be used to send a spacecraft on a round trip journey to Mars, which it considered a more exciting prospect.

selvaarchi
2016-Aug-09, 09:23 AM
sorry double entry

selvaarchi
2016-Sep-20, 09:04 AM
Congress is still trying to stop further work on ARM. In it's latest move (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/still-time-for-a-nasa-authorization-bill-this-year) it has the following - "Another place where H.R. 810 and the draft Senate bill agree is skepticism about the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) as one of the elements of that plan to get to Mars. At the time H.R. 810 was written it was called the Asteroid Retrieval Mission and the bill requires a report explaining the need for and cost of the program. The draft Senate bill points out that the cost for ARM has risen and the NASA Advisory Council has raised concerns, and the program is competing for resources with other aspects of the human exploration program. It does not call for the program to be terminated, but offers a sense of Congress statement that alternatives should be considered for demonstrating the technologies needed for the humans-to-Mars mission and requires a report from NASA on those alternatives."

NASA's response is to bring out their big guns :D

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-provides-update-asteroid-redirect-mission/


NASA provided an update on their Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) during a series of internet-streamed events on Sept. 14, 2016 from the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Long a mission with lukewarm support in many sectors, NASA provided subject matter experts, as well as agency leaders and governmental advisors, giving them the chance to feature some mission hardware and outline the key benefits to be gained from ARM.

The early panel discussion featured Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, and Dr. Michelle Gates, NASA’s ARM Program Director. Dr. Holdren was quick to assure the current administration’s support of the program.

selvaarchi
2017-Jan-14, 11:47 AM
Keeping my fingers crossed that this is not a bad omen for ARM.

http://spacenews.com/asteroid-missions-face-delays-and-restructuring/

"NASA is delaying contracts and other awards planned for its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) early this year by a few months, citing uncertainty about the agency’s budget.

The news about the revised ARM schedule, discussed Jan. 11 at a meeting of NASA’s Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) in Tucson, Arizona, came as backers of a planned European asteroid mission said they were working to scale down their mission after failing to win funding from the European Space Agency."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

spjung
2017-Jun-16, 10:14 PM
The mission (http://spacenews.com/nasa-closing-out-asteroid-redirect-mission/)is all but dead.

With administration plans to cancel it announced earlier this year, and a lack of congressional support, NASA is in an “orderly closeout” phase of its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM)...