Talk:Asteroid Redirect Mission
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asteroid Redirect Mission article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Asteroid Redirect Mission appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/April. |  |
See also
editAdded "Asteroid-impact avoidance" since the NASA press release mentions this as one objective of the project. Kortoso (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
2014 update
editName changed to Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM): http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-052 --BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The whole thing seems like BS
editThe article states that it would take four years to get to the asteroid in 2019, that's next year. There is no evidence that construction of such a complicated spacecraft has even begun and it's the last quarter of 2014.Ericl (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- They keep delaying the start date which causes the end date to slip. The ARM mission has now got its own line item in NASA's budget from Congress. They may even get some money eventually. Andrew Swallow (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Launch Apparently on 2019
editAccording to this update on April 10 2014, The mission is now scheduled to be launched on 2019. The mission timeline should be revised according to this update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.236.253 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Lobying for powerful ion thruster
edit"U.S. Lawmaker Wants NASA Working on Interstellar Propulsion" [1]. He wants to fund the Asteroid Redirect Mission and develop a 25-kilowatt to 30-kilowatt engine 10x more powerful that that on Dawn spacecrft.
More updates available at: [2] BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Objectives
edit"examiner.com is WP:Spam blacklist and the source doesnt say ARM is precursor to Phobos mission, but ARM could possibly become a Phobos mission"
I see. So instead of tagging the cite appropriately, Kubanczyk deletes the article text. Sounds like someone wasn't at Phobos Deimos 2016... or Phobos Deimos 2011, or 2007. Large-scale ion-propelled Mars missions are not only relevant to ARM, they predate it. Hence, ARM as a demo of interplanetary manned (and unmanned, naturally) one-way or two-way missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.169.184 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Plans
editHow does a mission "still in the early stages of planning and development" have its date adjustments as relevant? Particularly this one- easily accessible objects have long synodic periods, precisely because they're easily accessible. Evaluating one target versus another then produces wild swings in mission events. The launch date will then continue to swing wildly (unless 2008 EV5 sticks) despite construction contract award approaching in months. Not still early at all.
And published papers beat PopSci blurbs any day. Still not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.86.143 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)