Echoes of a Romney Space Policy?
Senator: NASA to Lasso Asteorid, Bring it Closer, AP
“George Washington University Space Policy Institute Director Scott Pace, a top NASA official during the George W. Bush administration, was critical of the plan, saying it was a bad idea scientifically and for international cooperation. Instead, NASA and other countries should first join forces for a comprehensive survey of all possible dangerous space rocks, Pace said.”
Russia may join asteroid retrieval mission, UPI
“Russia says its Roscosmos space agency may join NASA in an ambitious mission to capture an asteroid and bring it to a lunar orbit for exploration. … [It is] a very interesting project, which NASA proposes to carry out jointly with Roscosmos specialists,” Roscosmos head Vladimir Popovkin said.”
Keith’s note: It certainly seems like Russia is interested in this in contrast to what Scott Pace would have you think. Other countries will soon line up as well. Scott Pace should know that there is no technical or political reason not to do this mission and and asteroid survey in parallel i.e. simultaneously. It comes down to money (there seems to be some) and sources report that this mission will also see an enhancement in a variety of activities associated with NEO detection.
When it comes to Obama space policy and Scott Pace there always seems to be a lingering “what if” bitterness – of the sort often associated with talking about having lost some big game way back in high school. You have to know that if President Romney told Scott Pace to do this mission he’d have been absolutely thrilled at being given the opportunity.
– The Romney Campaign has a Space Policy Etch-A-Sketch, earlier post
– Double Standards and Sour Grapes From the Romney/Griffin Camp
I think that this is a very interesting concept. I hope that they include spectral analysis in the requirements in order to bring something other than just a stony asteroid back.
If they would be able to find a carbonaceous chondrite or a metal object, that would be amazingly interesting for our future.
I would be curious to see how many candidates are in sufficiently accessible orbits.
At this size? Quite a lot actually. Statistically speaking 3% of the “lot” will be metallic. I would strongly urge looking for one of those….
How much heavier would one of those be? And would the propulsion be able to move it as needed (time frame and fuel etc.) Rough questions but I really can’t flesh them out. I guess they’ll check these things out as the proposal evolves.
~8 grams/cm3. Do the math.
Sorry, proposal hell right now…
I think Keith’s point about doing the asteroid mission and the survey concurrently is a major consideration. I’d like to see each program include anything that would facilitate or expand the accomplishments of the other project. For example, there may be detailed measurements that could be taken during asteroid approach that would provide useful data for improving the survey scanning methodology. Always look for possible synergy across programs instead of treating each one as as if it were in a universe of its own.
I don’t see where Russia comes into the picture.
We may see this turn into one of the most clear-cut choices between space as science only and space as a variety of goals including space development. Some scientists will obviously want money for science missions, and a whole asteroid is a far larger scientific sample than they would ever need. Industrialists would look at the asteroid as a potential ore body. A good compromise would provide 10% of the cost of the retrieval mission for asteroid science and NEO detection, which after all, is a good investment. Having an asteroid just a few light seconds from Earth could speed up the development of asteroid mining and smelting equipment. It would also be a PR bonanza for the space development community, as long as the media do not exploit the chicken little syndrome too much!
“and a whole asteroid is a far larger scientific sample than they would ever need“
John,
I agree with you completely, except perhaps for the above statement. Your thinking would appear to assume that any 10% of the rock is going to characteristic of the entire thing; in other words, uniform composition and density. There’s nothing to suggest whether this is true or false, and the answer is itself important information in terms of understanding both earlier times and the present. So, I think you’d have to split the access in time — let the scientists have a go at the whole thing first, then give the industry people access to their chunk.
Steve
The funny thing is, he is pretty much complaining about a lack of a clear-defined objective for a space program… Well, Charlie, welcome to the aerospace world post-apollo, now tell me something new.
And he blame, in the end, is in the American electorate. You don’t really demand it (not that anybody else does either). 🙁
Ernesto,
If I understand what you’re saying — that Bolden (and everybody else) isn’t demanding direction for the space program — then I have to ask, demand from Whom? By law it’s the President who should be defining NASA’s “goals.” In reality Congress and other money-controlling entities (like the OMB) are controlling the programs by controlling the money allocated to them. The system is very broken, so to whom should he make his demands?
Also consider that many people hold the opposite opinion, that Bolden, as NASA Administrator, should be defining NASA’s objectives. So, who’s right? How do you get results in an abused, ambiguous chain of command in which every group is interested in only their own advantage?
I don’t see how you, or anyone, can really blame Bolden for the current state of affairs. He’s been fighting an uphill battle since day one as Administrator. I think he puts NASA and the good of the nation ahead of personal considerations, unlike the many people he has to battle against (and I mean many people! Congress alone is 550 people). Perhaps Bolden should be given a medal for having taken on a thankless high-profile job that no one else would touch at the time.
Steve