Page 1 of 2 |
[ 28 posts ] |
Asteroids as Deep Space Probes
Author | Message |
---|---|
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363 Location: Italy ![]() |
.
There are many small, mid and big asteroids that have their elliptical orbits so close to Earth, that, while (in my opinion) are not so interesting to send (very risky) manned mission, are VERY interesting as "natural deep space probes" since they can fly in the Solar System without any "propellent" nor "engine", as explained in my latest article "Asteroids as Deep Space Probes": http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/013asteroids.html ![]() . _________________ . Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS . ghostNASA.com . gaetanomarano.it . |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Moon Mission Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361 Location: Austin, Texas ![]() |
An asteroid is not a free ride to anywhere in the solar system. The asteroid cannot change its orbit to go where you want, it just orbits in its own orbit like a moon or planet does. You can no more ride an asteroid to Jupiter than you can ride the Moon or Mars to Jupiter. If you are lucky enough to find an asteroid that is in an orbit that happens to come close to both Earth and Jupiter, the propellant needed by the space craft to rendezvous with that asteroid is exactly the same as would be needed to send the space craft to Jupiter on its own. The presence of absence of the asteroid has no effect on the amount of propellant needed.
You must understand that space craft are coasting without using any propulsion 99% of the time, just like an asteroid does. The only time the space craft uses propellant is to get set in the right orbit, then the engine is no longer needed. It isn't constantly using propellant as it flies. It technically isn't really flying, it is just orbiting, or moving on a ballistic path, which is to say a path controlled entirely by gravity and not by engine power. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363 Location: Italy ![]() |
campbelp2002 wrote: An asteroid is not a free ride to anywhere in the solar system. the amount of propellent must be calculated on real missions, not as a generic claim but, also assuming you're right, the asteroids as deep space probes give us many advantages only a few probes is launched to the big targets (Jupiter, Mars, etc.) but the solar system is ways bigger and interesting if many asteroids will be joined with a probe we can see the sun from a closer view, we can explore parts of the asteroids' belt where no probes will be never launched and to better know the space over the Pluto orbit where could be several objects we can't see with telescopes last, we can use the asteroids that have the most useful orbits (near Mars, etc.) to carry VERY BIG PAYLOADS (a giant Mars Space Station, large resupply, land vehicles, etc.) to be released near Mars, etc. I doubt, that send 500 mT (to be released near Mars) to an asteroid that run near Earth needs the SAME propellent than send it directly to Mars also, the advantage could be even better if that materials (LOX, etc.) will be send to the asteroids from a moon base cutting the needed propellent to 1/6th . _________________ . Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS . ghostNASA.com . gaetanomarano.it . |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Moderator ![]() ![]()
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 766 Location: New Zealand ![]() |
To get to it you have to match its course and velocity unless you want to try and impact it or grab on to it at some massive velocity.
If you have matched its orbit, then if you don't land on it you will still go out into deep space. Docking with the Asteroid takes almost no energy compared to matching its velocity, so it gives no propellant benefit. However the benefits of creating a solar space station on an asteroid could be quite numerous. If you stabilised its attitude by exteneding a beam out from the surface then many possibilities arise. The Asteroid's mass could protect equipment from debris and meteor showers. The Space station could function as relay to objects probes or planets on the far side of the sun, and it would form a stable deep space telescope platform. However their benefits do not come from propulsion. _________________ What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:18 pm
Posts: 124 Location: UK ![]() |
campbelp2002 wrote: If you are lucky enough to find an asteroid that is in an orbit that happens to come close to both Earth and Jupiter, the propellant needed by the space craft to rendezvous with that asteroid is exactly the same as would be needed to send the space craft to Jupiter on its own. That's exactly what I thought. Furthermore, I thought it ages before you did, and I could prove it if my website hadn't been censored by Google, etc, etc ![]() Unless, of course, he's planning on an inelastic collision... |
Back to top |
![]() |
Moon Mission Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361 Location: Austin, Texas ![]() |
gaetanomarano wrote: the amount of propellent must be calculated on real missions, not as a generic claim gaetanomarano wrote: I doubt, that send 500 mT (to be released near Mars) to an asteroid that run near Earth needs the SAME propellent than send it directly to Mars. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363 Location: Italy ![]() |
VERY BASIC knowledge of rockets say us that the payload falls while the distance increase... the same rocket can carry 10 mT to LEO or 5 mT to GEO or 2 mT to the Moon or a few hundreds kg. to Mars
if we send a payload to an asteroid that runs at 500,000 km. from earth, it needs an amount of propellent similar to a Moon travel, NOT for a Jupiter travel send large payloads to Jupiter, Saturn, etc. was possible thanks to the gravitational "slingshot" technique that allows to save the large amount of propellent of a direct launch . _________________ . Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS . ghostNASA.com . gaetanomarano.it . |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:18 pm
Posts: 124 Location: UK ![]() |
Hi Idiom
idiom wrote: However the benefits of creating a solar space station on an asteroid could be quite numerous. If you stabilised its attitude by exteneding a beam out from the surface then many possibilities arise. There could be benefits, but we need to know more about asteroids first. If by stabilising the attitude you mean despinning, you need to find a body with not too much spin in the first place. The current thinking is, I believe, that asteroids with significant spin are solid, whereas the slow-spinning ones are very likely 'rubble-piles' of loose material. The problem is applying any kind of force to it to cancel the spin, without simply disrupting the body and uprooting yourself. idiom wrote: The Asteroid's mass could protect equipment from debris and meteor showers. The Space station could function as relay to objects probes or planets on the far side of the sun, and it would form a stable deep space telescope platform. We now know that many asteroids have small satellites, and there may be thousands too small to detect, ie a debris cloud. So it could be that while the asteroid will protect instruments from debris with high relative velocity, it is at the cost of placing it inside a cloud of debris with very low relative velocities. That and the asteroid itself would limit the view available to instruments, and you exchange an impact hazard for a contamination/abrasion hazard. In general, tagging along with an asteroid will not help you characterize interplanetary space so much as cis-asteroidal space, which may be different. So I think the balanced view is that these concepts are not to be dismissed out of hand, but we need to know more about asteroids. There has to be an assessment of any body of rock which you propose to exploit as a resource in any way, even just as the foundation for a building. I think if we are going to support a space infrastructure with non-terrestrial resources, it makes sense to get materials from the smallest body that is easiest to get to - smaller bodies are easier to get away from. That is why NEOs are an important target for study, as well as further supporting the pure science objectives of the Dawn mission and others. Meanwhile the budget for Arecibo - one of the very few radio telescopes capable of doing active radar observations on NEOs - is being cut again. |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:18 pm
Posts: 124 Location: UK ![]() |
gaetanomarano wrote: if we send a payload to an asteroid that runs at 500,000 km. from earth, it needs an amount of propellent similar to a Moon travel, NOT for a Jupiter travel . You are describing an interception, not a rendezvous. Do you really not care how hard or how fast your payload hits the asteroid? You are demonstrating that it is possible to have some basic knowledge, but no basic understanding |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363 Location: Italy ![]() |
xiphius wrote: You are describing an interception, not a rendezvous. Do you really not care how hard or how fast your payload hits the asteroid? you forget that it was and will be done with very small probes while NASA plans to send a manned Orion to NEO, it's not a big problem . _________________ . Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS . ghostNASA.com . gaetanomarano.it . |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:18 pm
Posts: 124 Location: UK ![]() |
gaetanomarano wrote: xiphius wrote: You are describing an interception, not a rendezvous. Do you really not care how hard or how fast your payload hits the asteroid? you forget that it was and will be done with very small probes while NASA plans to send a manned Orion to NEO, it's not a big problem . A collision speed of several km/s is no problem, if the probe is as impervious to impact as you are to reason. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363 Location: Italy ![]() |
.
someday (this century or the next) when the Solar System will be colonized, the asteroids will be used as "interplanetary trains" big payload in the range of thousands tons will be joined to small asteroids running a few millions km. from earth (using a low amount of propellent if sent from earth or lower if sent from moon factories) then, that payload will travel at zero costs the billion km. between earth and jupiter and, while it will be near it, will release the payload to fly and land on a colonized moon of jupiter (or saturn) to-day it's sci-fi, to-morrow it will be a reality . _________________ . Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS . ghostNASA.com . gaetanomarano.it . |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:18 pm
Posts: 124 Location: UK ![]() |
First rule of the Space Paparazzo:
Never let the vectors spoil a good star-ride. |
Back to top |
![]() |
Moon Mission Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361 Location: Austin, Texas ![]() |
gaetanomarano wrote: VERY BASIC knowledge of rockets say us that the payload falls while the distance increase... the same rocket can carry 10 mT to LEO or 5 mT to GEO or 2 mT to the Moon or a few hundreds kg. to Mars gaetanomarano wrote: if we send a payload to an asteroid that runs at 500,000 km. from earth, it needs an amount of propellent similar to a Moon travel, NOT for a Jupiter travel gaetanomarano wrote: send large payloads to Jupiter, Saturn, etc. was possible thanks to the gravitational "slingshot" technique that allows to save the large amount of propellent of a direct launch. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363 Location: Italy ![]() |
xiphius wrote: ...if the probe is as impervious to impact... too fast asteroids will be (simply) not used . _________________ . Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS . ghostNASA.com . gaetanomarano.it . |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Page 1 of 2 |
[ 28 posts ] |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests |