IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Multiple Small-Body Encounters, Past & Future
vjkane
post Jan 14 2013, 05:27 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 706
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351





MOD NOTE: New topic split from previous posts here.



QUOTE (TheAnt @ Jan 14 2013, 08:05 AM) *
A proposal to get 3 asteroids visited with one mission could make that attractive that the proposal might get a go ahead.

There have been various concepts in the US planetary community for similar missions. I'm not sure if any made it to the status of formal proposals to the Discovery program. Eventually some space agency is likely to do this.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Jan 14 2013, 06:27 PM
Post #2


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 10127
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



Of course, the concept of a multiple small body mission is similar to the ill-fated CONTOUR. I hope we will see this mission happen - I would like to see a large sample of small bodies studied over the years. We're already doing quite well, but there is such diversity still to see.

Phil



--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.

Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke
NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Jan 14 2013, 09:00 PM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 706
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



At least several Discovery-class concepts/proposals looked at using solar electrical propulsion to randezvous/orbit several asteroids. There have also been many concepts, one dedicated (CONTOUR), a couple of extended mission (EPOXI, Stardust) of multiple ballistic flybys.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post Jan 15 2013, 06:44 AM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2073
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



I wonder how many asteroid encounters would be possible for a space-crafting going retrograde around the sun; delta-v issues aside, couldn't a huge number of flybys happened in close succession, with a kind of 'running into the rain' effect? Since Ulysses got into a polar orbit with a flyby of Jupiter, couldn't the planet fling something else right around? Or would it require multiple flybys over decades?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jgoldader
post Jan 15 2013, 11:34 AM
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 5-September 07
Member No.: 3662



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Jan 14 2013, 01:27 PM) *
Of course, the concept of a multiple small body mission is similar to the ill-fated CONTOUR. I hope we will see this mission happen - I would like to see a large sample of small bodies studied over the years. We're already doing quite well, but there is such diversity still to see.

Phil


I tossed out a thought earlier about stationing a craft at one of the EML points, waiting for targets of opportunity or just good close flybys. With enough good trajectory planning and delta-v you might be able to get back to the EML to wait for additional opportunities. Another possibility- we saw demos several years ago of "brilliant pebbles" hovering and maneuvering in tethered tests on the ground. Maybe we could put up a bus carrying half a dozen of those, augmented with a better propulsion system. Sort of nanosatellites, launched at good targets from EML. Payload maybe a webcam and a decent optical imager; are there enough mineral features to justify a 1-1.6 micron passively cooled imager or spectrometer?

Jeff
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheAnt
post Jan 15 2013, 11:42 AM
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 495
Joined: 12-February 12
Member No.: 6336



@vjkane: Oh yes EPOXI/Deep impact have taken a peek at 2 comets, and impacted one, with one asteroid coming up in 2020. And lets not forget about Dawn here. smile.gif

QUOTE (Explorer1 @ Jan 15 2013, 07:44 AM) *
I wonder how many asteroid encounters would be possible for a space-crafting going retrograde around the sun.


Regardless of direction, the spacecraft still would have to be at the proper position at the right time for one encounter, the same orbital mechanics would still apply. Perhaps it could add one or two encounters to a mission, the time for meaningful observations would be close to zero though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jan 15 2013, 02:38 PM
Post #7


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



A DAWN-type mission (with more appropriate instruments for flybys as opposed to systematic mapping from orbit) that instead of orbiting goes for a diverse, large selection of asteroids would be a real winner in my book.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Jan 15 2013, 04:07 PM
Post #8


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 10127
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



"....couldn't a huge number of flybys happened in close succession, ...."

But even travelling retrograde, space is still mostly empty. The number of targets encountered on any realistic trajectory will still be very small.

Phil



--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.

Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke
NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Jan 15 2013, 08:04 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



I imagine someone came up with the idea before I did, but I mentioned the idea of a retrograde asteroid belt mission years ago:

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/lofiver....php/t4087.html

The devil's in the details as to how you could find a path to optimize the number of close flybys. I think the key idea is not to pick ten asteroids and ask how to visit them but to consider the set of >10K asteroids and see which retrograde orbit out of the almost infinite permutations visits the largest number of asteroids.

The value of such a mission would be a function of how diverse the asteroids are. If every asteroid visited falls into four types, you may as well just visit four asteroids. If there's some stunning surprise there that you see in a quick/close encounter with the Kth asteroid, then you want to visit K asteroids, where K may be high.

More discussion at that linked thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Jan 15 2013, 10:17 PM
Post #10


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 706
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



QUOTE (jgoldader @ Jan 15 2013, 03:34 AM) *
I tossed out a thought earlier about stationing a craft at one of the EML points, waiting for targets of opportunity or just good close flybys. f

The ill-fated CONTOUR mission had a concept somewhat like that. If I remember correctly, following its prime missione, it was to have regular Earth flybys that would allow it to target new comets.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Jan 15 2013, 10:23 PM
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 706
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



I've been wondering if a team would propose a mission similar to Dawn to visit additional main belt asteroids. In some ways, the New Frontiers candidate mission to the Trojan asteroids would do that with 1-2 flybys and orbiting one body (summary here).

However the flight times are long and that imposes a ~$5M/year penalty during cruise. At the recently completed OPAG meeting, Alfred McEwen (HiRISE PI and PI for the proposed Discovery mission) said that the Discovery budget was really isn't large enough for outer planet missions (although he said several teams made proposals in the hopes that NASA's desire to fly an ASRG power system would tip NASA towards a longer mission). Those long flight times equally hurt a lot of asteroid and comet rendezvous missions, although they can use solar panels instead of plutonium for power.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jgoldader
post Jan 16 2013, 02:40 PM
Post #12


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 5-September 07
Member No.: 3662



QUOTE (vjkane @ Jan 15 2013, 05:23 PM) *
the flight times are long and that imposes a ~$5M/year penalty during cruise. At the recently completed OPAG meeting, Alfred McEwen (HiRISE PI and PI for the proposed Discovery mission) said that the Discovery budget was really isn't large enough for outer planet missions (although he said several teams made proposals in the hopes that NASA's desire to fly an ASRG power system would tip NASA towards a longer mission). Those long flight times equally hurt a lot of asteroid and comet rendezvous missions, although they can use solar panels instead of plutonium for power.


I'm sort of fixated on the idea of staging a multiple-encounter, flyby spacecraft out of one of the EML points, to which it would return after the encounter. SEP gives large delta-v but very slowly, so how about a spacecraft with a chemical engine to enable quick departures from EML, then using SEP to return to EML and await the next opportunity? I've never thought about the delta-v budgets before, so perhaps this is just a stupid (errr, uninformed?) idea, but maybe somebody here has done the math.

Jeff
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jan 16 2013, 02:57 PM
Post #13


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



DAWN could certainly have done multiple encounters from its prograde orbit using its ion engine if that was its only purpose.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 06:31 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.