This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Supporting the NASA Asteroid Strategy

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 2, 2013
Filed under

The Front Burner: Plan shows agency still turns obstacles into opportunities, Orlando Sentinel op-ed by Frank DiBello, Space Florida
This asteroid strategy will require much of this nation’s technical brain trust and industrial base. It will demand new technology with serious and long-term applications, it will result in more launches, and sooner, of American astronauts beyond low Earth orbit, and it shrewdly taps into a growing public and scientific interest in near-Earth objects and planetary defense.

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

25 responses to “Supporting the NASA Asteroid Strategy”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    NASA and friends have been trying to sell missions like that for years, and it doesn’t work. Why not just emphasize how cheap this is going to be, in terms of how much science we get?

    Of course, it’s probably impossible to do that with SLS and keep a straight face.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Silly Laughing System and Orion aside, I think this is starting to garner more genuine public interest than anything NASA has done since the very start of the Shuttle program (except for the two Shuttle disasters, of course, but that’s a different story). Despite the comments and press to date, I think the wind is changing and average people are starting to relate to the issues that surround asteroid missions. I find this encouraging, as long as we can somehow keep Congres from making mud out of perfectly good pies.

  2. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    “exactly what we need to do at this point in our nation’s history”
    “This nation and its next generation of explorers need a dream they can trust …”
    “this asteroid strategy is truly exciting, meaningful and just flat cool”
    “it shrewdly taps into a growing public and scientific interest in near-Earth objects and planetary defense.”

    Smells a bit like desperation to me.

    “This mission uses the vehicles and spacecraft that are already being funded, designed and built right now”

    Ahh… This sounds more like a “justify SLS” argument than anything else. The article should be summarized as “Because SLS is so expensive that we cannot build landing crafts or any other infrastructure, this is the only mission we can afford that uses SLS.”

  3. Cincy says:
    0
    0

    There is a counter-point to this op-ed that should also be linked:

    http://articles.orlandosent

    • CadetOne says:
      0
      0

      I think from the “evolution of the solar system” science perspective, the Moon is ideal. It is probably the best time capsule in the solar system.

      I think the science return from Paul Spudis’s approach is orders of magnitude greater (and will occur much sooner) than the “build SLS, bring asteroid to Lunar orbit, fly human there for a relatively short analysis” mission. Because of the cost of SLS and infrequent flights, it will probably be a one-off mission.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        However Spudis can’t resist a dig at Obama for “cancelling” Constellation, i.e. changing its name from Constellation to SLS/Orion.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        I think the science return from Paul Spudis’s approach is orders of magnitude greater (and will occur much sooner)

        CO, I don’t see how anyone can decide this independent of a stated set of specific goals. Everything that any of us supports or dismisses is relative to our personal goals for HSF, whether we state them or not. But when we don’t state our goals along with any given argument, then communication is not happening and pointless debate usually results. The “evolution of the solar system science perspective” is a start, but it covers far to much ground to be considered as a specific set of goals.

        You would appear to be part of the Moon First contingent; fair enough, but why? What “greater” science return do you see us getting from it, and why is that return greater? (What do you see the things that we’d learn getting used for?) This is the discussion that everybody needs to engage in, instead of just arguing for one destination or another.

        I. myself, am in favor of doing the asteroid mission(s) first, but I don’t think my opinion would mean anything to anyone else unless I explained why I feel that way, what my leading goals in space are and how things learned and/or acquired by the asteroid mission(s) would be beneficial towards accomplishing those goals. This also opens the door to understanding one another better because it’s often not the missions but rather the goals in which our viewpoints diverge,

        • CadetOne says:
          0
          0

          “You would appear to be part of the Moon First contingent; fair enough, but why?”

          I’m a “space industry first” person. That is, I want to see the building of a larger industry with multiple revenue streams and lots of players (not a monolithic contractor with a single very expensive goal that sucks up all the resources for decades (like ISS)).

          For me, the Moon is just a convenient vehicle for building a space industry.

          I’m not against asteroid missions. I’m against SLS.

          A space industry will happen, but it will happen much faster without SLS.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I see; makes good sense to me. I’m also “space industry first” (with qualifiers), but I’m guessing we’ve got differing ideas about implementation strategies. How do you feel about space industries operating in space itself, instead of on a the surface of any planets or moons? We know we’re going to need a lot of off-surface infrastructure as well as space vehicles, so why not build and operate the space industries where they and their output are going to be used, instead of at the bottom of a gravity well and then having to face the same old problems of launching and landing?

          • CadetOne says:
            0
            0

            To me, a space industry consists of multiple suppliers and consumers for a range of products and services. This includes multiple revenue streams (read “non-NASA”). NASA just becomes one of the customers.

            The destination is less important (orbit, surface of the Moon, at an asteroid, Mars), but how NASA buys products & services will shape how and how much non-NASA money comes into play.

            For example, while NASA’s COTS contract certainly helped SpaceX, Musk poured lots of his own money into their development and SpaceX’s launch manifest has lots of non-NASA customers. NASA, being one of the customers, benefits from this as development and operations costs are spread across many more customers.

            Another pair of related examples are Virgin Galactic’s LauncherOne small satellite launcher (which leverages investment in suborbital tourism) and is planning on launching Planetary Resources’ ARKYD 100 space telescope (leveraging Kickstarter! feel free to contribute).

            I would like to see NASA (and political leaders) make buying decisions that encourages more of this outside investment. For example, Armadillo, Masten, and SpaceX have all demonstrated (on their own dime) VTVL. What if NASA said, “If you can pass certain reviews and tests, we’ll buy the launch vehicle to get you to the Moon, but you are responsible for landing.”? NASA would get free R&D on Lunar Lander technology.

            Instead, NASA has a tradition of competing with existing companies (and itself). For example, JSC has been working on Morpheus and Marshall has Mighty Eagle. (And of course, SLS essentially competes against Delta, Atlas, Falcon, and potentially others LVs).

            http://www.virgingalactic.c

            http://www.kickstarter.com/

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            OK. That’s different from where I thought we were headed. Maybe we’re looking at different time frames. The current changes in some of NASA’s procurement, like COTS and the SAAs, combined with non-government investment capital is a definite step forward. It sounds to me like you’re advocating making this situation the new status quo, whereas I see it as just one incremental step along the long path to “space industry.”

            The destination is less important

            I don’t see it that way. In order to end up with what we want long term, we have to define, in detail, exactly what it is that we want long term, otherwise we won’t be working towards it, except maybe by dumb luck. Without specific goals, a meaningful implementation strategy can not be developed, therefore no missions/tasks can be argued and evaluated as worthwhile or otherwise. In other words, we would have a perpetual continuation of what’s been happening for the last few decades — start, cancel, waste, repeat. There’s no cumulative value to the various pieces (programs) when the pieces are essentially unrelated to one another and to specified goals.

            So, we’re back to where we started. Personally, I like to tell people, keep your “visions”; give me sensible goals and a master plan for achieving them. We all must know (and agree on) where we want to go, or we’ll never get there, and that means answering certain questions up front such as do we locate our space industrial facilities in space, or on a planetary surface, or some combination?

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Belatedly:
            You can’t develop an “industry in space” without the sort of space industry on Earth that CO advocates.

            NASA’s HSF headline programs won’t play a role in directly creating an “industry in space”. Whether Moon/Mars or asteroids, it doesn’t matter. All NASA HSF missions will be predominantly arsenal space, with no long term value.

            What space-industrialisation gets from NASA, snuck in behind the program-of-record is the anchor customer NewSpace needs to attract investors; a show of confidence in them. It is that low-cost multi-vendor access to space that will hopefully lead to long-term development of industry in space.

            So the key is to find a headline mission that doesn’t harm that process. And for the record, I think CO’s wrong about missions to the moon being on the right path. No matter what the “Moon First” faction advocates, what we’ll get from an actual NASA moon focus is a step backwards. It will put focus back on the traditional players and create the traditional single program around which all of HSF and all contractors rotate. A single NASA base, or more likely, a handful of longer-duration Apollo-style flights. Then interest in the moon will immediately die again for decades, just as it did the first time, just as it is now with space-stations and space-planes.

            Asteroid missions by NASA will be just as traditional and useless. But by shifting focus from traditional monolithic targets (Moon/Mars) it gets people used to the idea of other goals, it gets them listening to those crazy asteroid miners. Again, it’s about a show of confidence. The actual NASA asteroid mission is irrelevant, they won’t, in themselves, do anything to advance space industry.

            If we can buy time for the NewSpace players, and cream off a little funding for them, keep NASA from doubling down on arsenal space again, then in 20 years when NASA finishes playing with rocks and wants to go back to the moon, they’ll be able to buy virtually the entire mission off the shelf. Congress won’t have a choice. Commercial manned launches. Flight proven private space station modules, easily adaptable for the lunar surface, multiple vendors with experience in VTOL. Perhaps some in-orbit refuelling experience… etc. And that moon program becomes the anchor customer for the next round of NewSpace innovation, rather just a continuation of backwards looking arsenal contractors.

  4. Jeff Howard says:
    0
    0

    One vote here for an International Lunar Station as our next step in space. After all, how many asteroids have been identified that we can visit in the next twenty years and how many manned missions to a 25 foot rock hauled to lunar orbit would be needed to achieve any possible science objectives?

    • Jeff Howard says:
      0
      0

      Since it would still represent some progress, I’d support a space station attached to an asteroid in orbit of the moon. To me though it would really be more of a poor man’s lunar base. I see it difficult for parents to explain to kids that we can fly to the vicinity of the moon but our great country can’t come up with the money to land there. Can we really say we’ve explored a world with more land area than North America and Brazil combined after only six missions between 1969 and 1972?

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        If our goal was science robotics would be much more cost-effective. To make human lunar flight practical, as with all human spaceflight, we must radically reduce its cost. We have to start with the earth-to-LEO leg.

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        Good point Jeff.
        People understand “colonizing” better than exploring. Columbus “explored” Cortez colonized. “We should take ownership of the moon and it’s resources.” That is something that people would understand. Robotics at this distance no longer pushes the imagination of school children, or tax payers.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          We should take ownership of the moon and it’s resources

          You want to take something that is merely very difficult and make it completely impossible? That make no sense at all.

          There might be value in “claiming” an asteroid and its resources, although that would almost certainly be bad PR, but trying to claim the Moon and/or its resources, besides being a treaty violation, would be diplomatic suicide with the potential for very serious, long term consequences.

  5. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    Damn it. NASA is and has been many things. Public works (SLS)? Yes. Respsonse to the communist threat? Yes. Expanding our understanding of our planet, the Solar System, Universe beyond what just one generation past could imagine? Hell Yes! How many Spanish, Portuguese, British galleons sit on the ocean bottom, sailors that departed on great journeys, into the unknown, in ignorance, in fear of falling off the edge of the earth. In our own way we repeat such history. We have learned and repeated. And NASA has great missions ongoing but the manned program needs some objectives. The royal purses are not infinitely deep, our federal government is in a state of chaos, and many inside NASA, have no vision, no sense of adventure, are wrapped up with staying between the lines. When Obama’s term is done, we cannot afford to reset another prime objective. The Asteroid Initiative is not too costly, has good technical challenges, and science return. The mission will be a key stepping stone for commerce. But the NASA budget needs an infusion of Initiative. We have been under a sequestration for 2 decades- a flat budget with inflation chipping away at real dollar value.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I have been a space enthusiast since Sputnik. But please tell me how we can get any kind of a substantial budget increase for a relatively expensive mission which doesn’t provide any financial return in an era when taxes are poison? Keep in mind that returning the asteroid is the cheap part of this mission; the expensive part is using SLS/Orion to send people out to the moon to study it. Why not just return it to LEO?

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Agreed v4. But keep in mind that it is a two-part program and budgets are effectively under the gun of validity dates. So, if we get a rock back home and SLS/Orion is not yet ready to get on with phase two, what are the options?

        Given the number of politicians who still argue the sunk costs theory, it’s not impossible that new wisdom may be handed down and NASA is told to proceed using something other than SLS/Orion. Otherwise, it’s throw away what’s been done (with a loose rock in the neighborhood), or pay a whole lot of people to do nothing day-for-day while waiting for SLS/Orion to be finished and tested, or somehow send the asteroid back where it came from and scrap the whole program after spending a huge chunk of money. Consider that, for once, there will be no one else that Congress can set up as the scapegoat, this one will fall squarely back in their lap, so they’ll have to act, act quickly, and act in the best interests of the taxpayers.

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        Nothing up my sleeve… presto! … “I think I need a bigger hat!” Well, I use to watch the reruns of R&B and started walking during Apollo era. That’s what we need from our 2014 budget – a Rhinoceros not a squirrel pulled from a hat. I have no illusions that the present economic situation and federal budget offers little hope. What is at stake is the Manned Program. If you favor some beyond LEO manned missions by NASA, then this is about the most we can afford. The alternative is to just send astronauts outside of the Magnetosphere, orbit the Moon or make a stop at the Earth-Sun L2 point. If you think the return is low for manned visits to an Earth orbited asteroid, around the Moon or to L2 would be lower. The asteroid mission will drive some new technology and some science return. Yes. The robotic mission to an asteroid is probably cheaper. My guess is that it will cost about the same as MSL – about $3B. How much the manned visit costs depends on how you do your accounting of the dollars spent on SLS/MPCV but I would agree that it will be the more expensive mission. NASA manned flight pales in comparison to the SCIENCE ROI that all the incredible robotic missions have provided. Consider how modest the computer and robotics are on Cassini or even MER and what return there is. And consider how much more autonomous and sophisticated robotics will become. If private efforts want to fly by Mars or land and colonize now, so be it. NASA cannot afford it but for another couple more decades the NASA manned program will drive a bit more technology. IMO, SLS is the last NASA chemical rocket but there remains a need for manned exploration to build some more technology, gain experience before commercial endeavors take the lead. While commerce will eventually provide all launch vehicles, life support, manned vessels, space stations, governments will need to maintain a space flight capability of some order. The manned flight to an asteroid might be one of the very last big NASA manned missions. Moon bases or Mars colonization will go commercial/private. Scientific space probes will remain in the hands of NASA. Imagine what chaos and a loss of knowledge would arise if commercial efforts became the dominant source of space science and exploration. We already have to pay Space Flight Now for launch images and video. Imagine if commerce was the first to find life on Mars or Europa. I suspect it would cost more than 50 cents a peep to stare at the aliens. So, the Asteroid Initiative involves Public Works but it is not a complete “Bridge to nowhere” and the Manned program has done much worse ROI than this.

  6. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    Frank Dibello’s rationale is simply not believable. There is no scientific rationale for an asteroid visit. Tons of them fall on earth everyday and we have lots of samples. We know how to move mass in space. Moving a small rock is not the same as moving as city-killer or an earth killer, both of which are hugely more massive than anything we would be capable of maneuvering into a lunar orbit for decades, short of using a nuclear bomb. There might be some rationale for a deep space asteroid rendezvous-proof of technology, stressing systems limits, etc. But the rationale put forward is not it.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      If what you’re saying is true, then how do you account for groups like Planetary Resources and their wealthy investors? None of these people can be out of touch or unaware, or they wouldn’t have reached the their stations in life. If we’re willing to look a little further down the road and/or consider possibilities that are usually dismissed out of hand by the misuse of statistics, like a large asteroid hit, then there is plenty of rationale for an asteroid visit, and the other proposed asteroid activities. Whether or not we choose to refer to the rationale as “scientific” is, I feel, irrelevant to the whole consideration. Asteroids and NEOs are going to be a big factor in our race’s future (I sincerely hope), because if they’re not then we’re quite likely to rot and die off in our contamination and overindulgence on this worn out planet of ours. Neither the Moon nor Mars is going to save us.

  7. SpaceTas says:
    0
    0

    The “flexible path” strategy came about because there was no funding to create a lander for the Moon or anywhere. The aim was to develop the capability to do long range mission to Mars … The asteroid mission was conceived as an easier target, which would require development of the basic technology, then hopefully evolve that to going to Mars.
    Now it appears that there’s no funds/will to develop that long range spaceflight capability. So by bringing an asteroid to the Moon we defer the deep space capability to the easier/cheaper cis-lunar mission.

    A steady decline in ambition.