3
$\begingroup$

There are proposals and maybe serious plans to send astronauts to asteroids or Mars' moons, objects which are a few kilometers or just a few meters in diameter. I call them "milligravity" objects since their gravities are operationally relevant, but maybe medically equivalent to microgravity. Some of those objects should be loose rubble piles, never before encountered by humans.

Wouldn't it be a valuable preparation to launch 20 tons or so of such a rubble pile, a bunch of sand and rock loosely bound together, to (a short lived) low Earth orbit and have astronauts test out handling technologies and operations on it? The structure of the specimens would be completely controlled by design. It could have sensors planted inside of it. The operations could be performed in relative safety. No time consuming transport of some boulder on some NEA would be needed, as with the ARM mission. A boulder which could be picked up from a NEA won't be an exotic rubble pile anyway, I suppose it would be more like some meter sized meteorites found in museums on Earth's surface.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you looking for actual cases where this has been considered, or just ideas? (Personally I think the idea would be far too expensive in launch mass to even consider.) $\endgroup$ – Andy Mar 21 '16 at 15:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Andy I've never heard it considered, other than jokingly to make fun of ARM. I'm looking here for some good reasons I cannot now see. Why should an Atlas V launching a 20 ton rubble pile (in a bag) to LEO be more expensive than an Atlas V launching a multi-year SEP robotic mission to a NEA to tow a boulder to lunar orbit, be more expensive? The astronauts could be launched only days later to visit this artificial and controlled rubble pile in LEO. $\endgroup$ – LocalFluff Mar 21 '16 at 15:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 20 tons is going to have pretty much 0 gravity. IMO that's different enough from the gravity generated by an asteroid a few km across to make it not worth bothering. $\endgroup$ – Hobbes Mar 21 '16 at 16:17
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Probably a non starter just from a PR perspective. "NASA spends billions launching rocks to space ... like there weren't enough there already!" $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Mar 21 '16 at 16:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OrganicMarble +1 But maybe it could be framed as a revenge? Hitting back against that polluting nightness which respectlessly throws its garbage at us. Like Xerxes whipped the Bosporus as punishment after a storm on it had destroyed his navy, Besides, recycling is very popular these days. From space to space, from ashes to... $\endgroup$ – LocalFluff Mar 21 '16 at 17:12
4
$\begingroup$

In short: yes, it could be. But it is needlessly expensive, so they will not do it.

First you have to get the junk up there. Then you need to get the astronauts up there, and essentially put them in the same situation as they need training for to deal with. Then get them down again.

The same could easily be achieved close enough in a pool or in a cable-robot for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Also: this question, and its answer, are relevant. In short: at 80 tons and 10 meters out, the Space Shuttle exerted almost 10 times less gravitational pull on the astronauts than did Jupiter.

So you are going to need to put a LOT of junk up there before you have anything even remotely useful for training in milligravity.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question does include the idea that the rubble be 'loosely bound together', which I take to mean it is in a net or something. I don't think it then imitates a milligravity environment in that case, but the idea is there. $\endgroup$ – kim holder Mar 21 '16 at 17:03
3
$\begingroup$

There is already too much junk in orbit which could collide with satellites and spacecraft, adding 20 tons of loose garbage would be extremely risky - if it got loose it could be a serious hazard.

To get the benefits of any training you would need to build a very, very big pile of rubble. 20 tons would not be enough, you would need more on the order of 2000 tons. Launching that much mass would be incredibly expensive, far more than any mission to go to a real space rock in the first place.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.