• Smithsonian
    Instiution
  • Smithsonian
    Journeys
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Smithsonian
    magazine

AirSpaceMag.com

  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • History of Flight
  • Flight Today
  • Military Aviation
  • Space Exploration
  • Need to Know
  • How Things Work
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Blogs
  • The Daily Planet
  • Letters To Earth
  • The Once and Future Moon
  • The View from 30,000 Feet
  • On Air
  • AirRecon
The Once and Future Moon Blog, Written by Paul D. Spudis

September 1, 2011

Destination: Moon or Asteroid? Part II: Scientific Considerations

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email | More

People at an asteroid: What will they do there?

Part II:  Scientific Considerations

In my last post, I examined some of the operational considerations associated with a human mission to a near Earth asteroid and how it contrasted with the simpler, easier operations of lunar return.  Here, I want to consider what we might do at this destination by focusing on the scientific activities and possible return we could expect from such a mission.  Some of the operational constraints mentioned in the previous post will impact the scientific return we expect from a human NEO mission.

Asteroids are the left over debris from the formation of the Solar System.  Solid pieces of refractory (high melting temperature) elements and minerals that make up the rocky planets have their precursors in the asteroids.  We actually have many pieces of these objects now – as meteorites.  The rocks that fall from the sky are overwhelmingly from the small asteroids that orbit the Sun (the exception is that in meteorite collections, some come from larger bodies, including the Moon and Mars).

Moreover, we have flown by almost a dozen small bodies, orbited two, impacted one and “landed” on two others.  Thousands of images and spectra have been obtained for these rocky objects.  The chemical composition of the asteroids Eros and Vesta have been obtained remotely.  We have catalogued the craters, cracks, scarps, grooves and pits that make up the surface features of these objects.  We have seen that some are highly fragmental aggregates of smaller rocks, while others seem to be more solid and denser.  In addition to these spacecraft data, thousands of asteroids have been catalogued, mapped and spectrally characterized from telescopes on the Earth.  We have recognized the compositional variety, the various shapes, spin rates and orbits of these small planetoids.  We now know for certain that the most common type of meteorite (chondrite) is derived from the most spectally common type of asteroid (S-type) as a result from the Hayabusa mission, the world’s first asteroid sample return.

In short, we know quite a bit about the asteroids.  What new knowledge would we gain from a human mission to one?

Although we have (literally) tons of meteorites, extraterrestrial samples without geological context have much less scientific value than those collected from planetary units with regional extent and clear origins.  Many different processes have affected the surfaces of the planets and understanding the precise location and geological setting of a rock is essential to reconstructing the history and processes responsible for its formation and by inference, the history and processes of its host planet.

Most asteroids are made up of primitive, undifferentiated planetary matter.  They have been destroyed and re-assembled by collision and impact over the last 4.5 billion years of Solar System history.  The surface has been ground-up and fragmented by the creation of regolith and some details of this process remain poorly understood.  But in general terms, we pretty much know what asteroids are made of, how they are put together, and what processes operate upon their surfaces.  True enough, the details are not fully understood, but there is no reason to suspect that we are missing a major piece of the asteroid story.  In contrast, planetary bodies such as the Moon have whole epochs and processes that we are just now uncovering – in the case of the Moon, water has been recently found to be present inside, outside and in significant quantity at the poles, relations that have enormous implications for lunar history and about which we were nearly totally ignorant only a couple of years ago.

Most NEOs will be simple ordinary chondrites – we know this because ordinary chondrites make up about 85% of all meteorite falls (an observed fall of a rock from the sky).  This class of meteorite is remarkable, not for its diversity but for its uniformity.  Chondrites are used as a chemical standard in the analysis of planetary rocks and soils to measure the amounts of differentiation or chemical change during geological processing.  In themselves, chondrites do not vary (much) except that they show different degrees of heating subsequent to their formation, but not enough heating to significantly change their chemical composition.

Some NEO asteroids are pieces of bigger objects that experienced chemical and mineral change or differentiation.  Vesta (not a NEO, but a main belt asteroid) has reflection spectra similar to known, evolved meteorites, the eucrite group.  These rocks suggest that some asteroids are small, differentiated planetoids, having volcanic activity that dates from the very beginning of Solar System history.  Moreover, since we have pieces of the Moon and Mars as meteorite fragments, some NEOs may consist of material blasted off these planets.  However, given that most NEOs are inaccessible to human missions, the likelihood that we could visit one of planetary derivation is small (curious that the most interesting of the NEOs appear to be those derived from some bigger (planet-sized) object.)  In broad terms of meteorite science, multiple small samples from a variety of asteroid types are preferable to many bigger samples of a single specimen, exactly the opposite of what a human mission will provide.

What specifically would a crew do during a NEO visit?  An astronaut on a planet typically would explore the surface, map geological relations where possible, collect representative samples of the units and rock types that can be discerned, and collect as much mapping and compositional data as possible to aid in the interpretation of the returned samples.  In the case of a NEO, many of these activities would not be particularly fruitful.  The asteroid is either a pile of rubble or a single huge boulder.  Chondritic meteorites are uniform in composition, so geological setting is not particularly instructive.  We do have questions about the processes of space weathering, the changes that occur in rocks as a result of their exposure to space for varying lengths of time.   Such questions could be addressed by a simple robotic sample collector, as the recently approved OSIRIS mission plans to do.

One question that could be addressed by human visitors to asteroids is their internal make-up and structure.  Some appear to be rubble piles while others are nearly solid – why such different fates in different asteroids?  By using active seismometry (acoustic sounding), a human crew could lay out instruments and sensors to decipher the density profile of an asteroid.  Understanding the internal structure of an asteroid is important for learning how strong such objects are; this could be an important factor in devising mitigation strategies in case we ever have to divert a NEO away from a collision trajectory with the Earth.  As mentioned in my preceding post, the crew had better work quickly – loiter times at the asteroid will probably be short, on the order of a few days at most.

Although we can explore asteroids with human missions, it seems likely that few significant insights into the origins and processes of the early Solar System will result from such exploration.  Such study is already a very active field, using the samples that nature has provided us – the meteorites.  Sample collection from an asteroid will yield more samples of meteorites, only without the melted fusion crusts that passage through the Earth’s atmosphere creates.  In other words, from this mission, scientific progress will be incremental, not revolutionary.

In contrast, because they yield information on geological histories and processes at planet-wide scales, sample collection and return from a large planetary body such as the Moon or Mars could revolutionize our knowledge of these objects in particular and the Solar System in general.  Many years prior to the Moon missions, we had meteorites that showed impact metamorphic effects but the idea of impact-caused mass extinctions of life on Earth only came after we had fully comprehended the impact process recorded in the Apollo samples from the Moon.  The significance of impact-related mineral and chemical features were not appreciated until we had collected samples with geological context to understand what the lunar samples were telling us.

Of course, science being unpredictable, some major surprise that could revolutionize our knowledge may await us on some distant asteroid.  But such surprises doubtless await us in many places throughout the Solar System and the best way to assure ourselves that we will eventually find them is to develop the capability to go anywhere in space at any time.  That means developing and using the resources of space to create new capabilities.  I will consider that in my next post.

Destination: Moon or Asteroid?

Part I:  Operational Considerations

Part III: Resource Utilization Considerations



Posted By: Paul D. Spudis — Lunar Exploration,Lunar Science,Space and Society,Space Politics,Space Transportation | Link | Comments (11)


11 Comments

  1. [...] Part II:  Science Considerations [...]

    Pingback by Destination: Moon or Asteroid? | The Once and Future Moon — September 1, 2011 @ 12:02 pm


  2. I guess I see the reason for going to an asteroid as being primarily driven by the need to perfect our ability to venture further and further away from Earth, and asteroids make a compelling destination. The President said as much when he announced that NASA’s next destination would be an asteroid:

    “So I believe it’s more important to ramp up our capabilities to reach – and operate at – a series of increasingly demanding targets, while advancing our technological capabilities with each step forward. And that’s what this strategy does.”

    But as long as we’re there we should take the opportunity to do as much science as we can. Kind of like what we did with Apollo, which was primarily a political mission (beat the Soviets), not one created specifically for science. Just like with the Moon too, once we’ve perfected the technology and techniques, others can follow at a later date if they want (although the cost of doing such has held us back so far).

    Just as there are those (like the author) that believe that what we have learned about the Moon merits further exploration and possibly exploitation, so it might turn out for asteroids. But that would be secondary to the initial mission of being able to get there and return safely.

    Comment by Coastal Ron — September 1, 2011 @ 3:50 pm


  3. Sensible conclusion. What can also be said is that the asteroid we visit is going to be chosen not because it looks scientifically interesting, but because if happens to be within range. Also, I guess, according to the “rules” of exploration, it has to be big enough to not look silly with a flag implanted in it. Yes, NASA has decided that an asteroid worth a human visit has to be at least a certain size!

    As noted, there is a lot of diversity in the population of asteroids, and the diversity tells us more about the history of our solar system than what any individual asteroid will tell us. It’s unlikely that human voyages to asteroids to asteroids will be particularly frequent, and it’s unlikely that a visit to one will tell us much about the rest.

    In that context, a human visit to an asteroid in the interest of global defense is probably also of little use. The asteroid we learn all about the structure of is probably not the one that will eventually threaten us. The lessons we learn from the asteroid we visit may be astoundingly misleading for the one that has us in its crosshairs.

    Yes, a decision to visit an asteroid will result in a lot of money being ploughed into asteroidal research, and probably seed new surveys for them, but that in itself is not a cogent reason to send people to them.

    That being the case, an investment in a fleet of robotic spacecraft, sent to different asteroids, probably brings a lot more scientific value than a visit to one.

    Now, the same might be said about human trips to different locales on the Moon.

    Comment by Henry Muslin — September 1, 2011 @ 5:43 pm


  4. @Henry Muslin

    “That being the case, an investment in a fleet of robotic spacecraft, sent to different asteroids, probably brings a lot more scientific value than a visit to one.

    Now, the same might be said about human trips to different locales on the Moon.”

    I agree with you for both cases. We could visit a lot more asteroids a lot more cheaply with unmanned vehicles. And the same is true for the Moon vs manned lunar sorties.

    However, if we had a permanently manned lunar facility, unmanned Earth controlled lunar rovers could travel continuously over the lunar surface surveying a large variety of areas and regions on the Moon while continuously collecting samples to be returned to the lunar base for study or eventual return to Earth for further study. So a lunar base equipped with teleoperated lunar rovers would be superior to manned and unmanned sorties to the lunar surface.

    Comment by Marcel F. Williams — September 1, 2011 @ 7:55 pm


  5. [...] the first two posts (Part 1, Part 2) in Paul Spudis’ new series, “Destination: Moon or Asteroid.” Part 3 promises to [...]

    Pingback by Destination: Moon or Asteroid? Part I: Operational Considerations « Once Upon A Time in Heaven — September 2, 2011 @ 6:33 am


  6. I am surprised you didn’t talk about the cold traps. If there are sheets of ice two or more meters thick, presumably they’re an accumulation over billions of years. It seems to me the layers of these ice sheets would be to history of our solar system what the fossil record is to life on earth. And the cryogenic temperatures help preserve the materials there. I couldn’t imagine a better time capsule.

    Moreover, at 30 degrees kelvin, I would expect these to be exceedingly unique and bizarre environments. I would think some of the New Horizons folks would be interested in the polar cold traps. While we’ve been able to create extreme cold in the laboratory, we’ve had little opportunity to study a natural environment with such cold temperatures.

    In my opinion, the Lunar poles are the most scientifically interesting destinations in the solar system.

    Comment by Hop David — September 2, 2011 @ 11:35 am


  7. I am surprised you didn’t talk about the cold traps.

    You are absolutely correct — study of these features would reveal new chapters in the history of the Moon and Solar System. My focus in this piece is on the science to be done at an asteroid because I cover the science to be done on the Moon on this blog at length in multiple articles. Some of the new science that could be done in the lunar polar cold traps is described here:

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/ler_draft/DRAFT-LER-Version-1-1.pdf

    Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 4, 2011 @ 4:59 am


  8. [...] is making. Spudis took on a asteroids vs. moon evidence and found that not usually does a moon win on systematic merits, though also for palliate of operation and for apparatus [...]

    Pingback by European Scientists Make a Case for a Return to the Moon — June 9, 2012 @ 1:58 pm


  9. [...] is making. Spudis took on the asteroids vs. moon argument and found that not only does the moon win on scientific merits, but also for ease of operation and for resource [...]

    Pingback by European Scientists Make a Case for a Return to the Moon — June 10, 2012 @ 6:13 am


  10. [...] is making. Spudis took on the asteroids vs. moon argument and found that not only does the moon win on scientific merits, but also for ease of operation and for resource [...]

    Pingback by Praise Diana? Moon Determined to Be Better Mining Target than Asteroids by Collaborative European Report | NuclearNuttery — June 10, 2012 @ 11:32 pm


  11. [...] is making. Spudis took on the asteroids vs. moon argument and found that not only does the moon win on scientific merits, but also for ease of operation and for resource [...]

    Pingback by European Scientists Make a Case for a Return to the Moon | Open Source Portal — June 10, 2012 @ 11:44 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

The web editors have closed comments for this blog.

Advertisement



  • Join Us!

    1.  Twitter
    2.  Subscribe to RSS

  • About

    Paul D. Spudis is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. The opinions expressed are his own, and do not reflect the views of his employer or the Smithsonian Institution.
    Read full bio »
  • Recent Posts

    • The Moon’s Antipodal Magnetism Mystery
    • Alien Minerals Found in Lunar Crater – Film at Eleven!
    • Earth-Moon: A Watery “Double-Planet”
    • Thin Crust Moon
    • The Mystery of Shackleton Crater
  • Categories

    • Commercial space
    • Lunar Exploration
    • Lunar Resources
    • Lunar Science
    • polar processes
    • Space and Society
    • Space Politics
    • Space Transportation
  • Blogroll

    • AmericaSpace
    • Apollo Image Archive
    • Apollo Image Gallery
    • Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
    • Astronaut Tom Jones Flight Notes
    • Behind the Black
    • Beyond Apollo
    • Coalition for Space Exploration (Leonard David)
    • Commercial Space Gateway
    • Cosmic Log
    • Curmudgeon’s Corner
    • Dennis Wingo
    • Google Lunar X Prize
    • Leading Space
    • Letters to Earth (Don Pettit)
    • Lunar and Planetary Institute: Lunar Exploration
    • Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG)
    • Lunar Missions
    • Lunar Networks
    • Lunar Photo of the Day (LPOD)
    • Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)
    • Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission
    • Mini-RF Experiments
    • Moon Today
    • Moon Views
    • NASA Space History Page
    • NASA Spaceflight.com
    • NASA Watch
    • nasaengineer.com
    • National Space Society
    • New Papyrus
    • On Space (Aviation Week)
    • Out of the Cradle
    • Planetary Society Blog
    • Portal to the Universe
    • RLV and Space Transport News
    • Rockets and Such
    • Roger Launius's Blog
    • Selenian Boondocks
    • Space Daily
    • Space Exploration Resources
    • Space Today
    • Space.com
    • Spudis Lunar Resources
    • Spudis Lunar Resources Blog
    • The Space Show
    • The Space Show Blog
    • Transterrestrial Musings
    • Unmanned Spaceflight
    • Wayne Hale's Blog
  • Blogs from AirSpaceMag.com

    • Letters to Earth (Don Pettit)
    • The Daily Planet By the editors of Air & Space magazine
    • The View from 30,000 Feet By Steve Satre
  • Archives



Advertisement



Subscribe to Air & Space Magazine


View full archiveRecent Issues


  • 2011


  • 2010


  • 2009

Newsletter

Sign up for regular email updates from Air & Space magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

Subscribe Now

About Us

Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine has been delighting aerospace enthusiasts with the best writing about their favorite subject since April 1986. As an adjunct of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Air & Space matches the grand scope of the Museum, encompassing every era of aviation and space exploration. With stories that range from the Wright Brothers to the design of NASA's next lunar lander, Air & Space emphasizes the human stories as well as the technology of aviation and spaceflight.

Explore our Brands

  • goSmithsonian.com
  • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
  • Smithsonian Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Member Services
  • About Air & Space
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics

Smithsonian Institution

Produced by Clickability