/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5665046

Humanity, Fuck Yeah

>as we foolishly repeat the past of this planet, succumbing to the same temptation as history's greatest minds, the dinosaurs.

>>5665084
i gigled

A manned mission is always a step in the right direction. Unless you send HUMANS, there's no point to spaceflight at all.

But what will NASA do with the asteroid once they get one?

>>5665137
Learn babby steps on how to use asteroids for mining, resources, exploration, colonization, planetary bombardment, etc.

>>5665096
u gigled?

>>5665137
Drop it on North Korea.

>>5665137
There's a lot we could learn about asteroids and the history of the solar system from studying such an object and a small rock (8-10 meters across) would serve as excellent practice for rendezvous techniques and EVA procedures for dealing with larger asteroids.

Dealing with small objects like asteroids is a big change from surface missions. There won't be any noticeable surface gravity so any geological or instrumental work is going to have to be done in zero-g

>20 years to lgo past mun
>they wanted to send 70 people missions to mars in 1940
Thank you based america for only being useful in times when your fredurs are threatened by terrorists.

>>5665188

I lol'd.

>>5665183

As long as the PRACTICE advances. Notice well how spaceflight has actually RETREATED. Sending robots to do everything is a RETREAT from the practice of spaceflight.

>>5665597
Sending humans to do what robots could have wasn't an advance, it was a PR stunt. Doing something "just because we can" isn't usually how disciplines improve. Discover exactly what humans MUST do, where they cannot have cheaper or less efficient substitutes, and then work on allowing them to do so.

Insisting that people must be present on every space flight in order to ADVANCE is putting the cart before the horse.

>>5665642

You may be thinking what you're saying makes sense, but it leads to the current absurdity of using robots for everything. Spaceflight is for Humans, since there's no point in exploring PLACES without intention of moving there to live, work and play. I'm not talking about harsh environments where living there is too much of a bother, if not actually impossible. But there's no rational reason why we can't start establishing living bases on the moon, since we need to establish a manufacturing center there ANYWAY. Explore, evaluate, then COLONIZE. That's what being Human was all about... before Western-dominated society turned everything into FAGGOTRY.

>>5665188
10/10

>>5665137
They'll mine it out and turn it into a space station I imagine.
And then strap a giant net and haul it around everywhere the same way they got it here.

>>5665181
ya m8 it gave me a gigle wots it to u m8

This is less about just getting to an asteroid and more about finding a target for manned spaceflight. They do have funding for a system that can travel beyond earth orbit (almost any launcher can do that) but a full mission to a larger asteroid is expensive.
This is not NASA ingenuity this is NASA trying to justify manned spaceflight. Bringing an asteroid to the moon will defeat many of the goals of the asteroid mission profile.

>>5665894
Yes, delta-v to Mars orbit is less than delta-v to Moon landing.

By bringing an asteroid to the Moon and flying astronauts to explore it limits the exposure to deep space outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field to weeks instead of months or years. We'll still gain some experience working in zero-g but that's about it.

>>5665945
>limits the exposure to deep space outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field to weeks instead of months or years.
In case anyone is unclear this is a significant downside. One of the merits of an asteroid mission is the extended deep space flight in practice for a Mars mission which may never happen.

There is good science to be done with asteroids particularly in sample return. Is that science worth a few hundred mission for a robotic sample return? Yes. Is it worth a few billion for this capture/visit idea? No but the money would come from manned spaceflight instead of science which is a good thing. However the science budget may be raided to pay for the pork that is SLS and with the agreements being signed in planetary science that could really fuck over astrophysics.

Would intercepting and landing on an asteroid to then cruise on to a desired destination be a stupid idea? Was just a random thought that went into my head.

I guess now that I think about it there would be no advantage to this, unless the asteroid could shield you from something.