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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

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:

Did you know... that NASA has plans to tug an asteroid to the Moon?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/April.

Wikipedia

2014 update[edit]

Name 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)[reply]

The whole thing seems like BS[edit]

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Launch Apparently on 2019[edit]

According 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plans[edit]

How 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)[reply]

See also[edit]