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.
Budget

NASA's Goofy New Asteroid Mission Strategy: Don't Worry – Be Happy (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 13, 2013
Filed under , , ,

NASA officials talk challenges, and thrills, of capturing an asteroid, LA Times
“Having trouble getting excited about NASA’s planned mission to redirect an asteroid? Maybe William Gerstenmaier can help. “Turn off your logical side and turn on your touchy-feely side, the one you almost never use,” Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, told attendees of an aeronautics and astronautics conference Wednesday in San Diego. “Then jump up and down and do some break-dancing. We’re going to grab a space rock and we’re going to move it!”
Keith’s update: Response from HEOMD AA Bill Gerstenmaier to NASAWatch: “We provided an hour on technical details, reasons and logic for the asteroid mission. The mission fits well with expanding experience in beyond low earth orbit. We showed charts that show how this mission supports Mars. We also had discussions on this mission supporting commercial asteroid activities. The logic, rational, and feasibility were covered in a detailed manner. I added a flip comment at the end. This is predominately what the LA times picked up. They might have understood the humor intended. The web cast and briefing show the thoughts and work that the teams have put into a very creditable mission. Other articles capture the technical discussions and logical points well.”
Keith’s 12 Sep note: This is typical of NASA’s increasingly baffling asteroid mission PR strategy. Since no one at NASA (starting with Charlie Bolden) is able to give a clear reason why NASA wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to go grab an asteroid and move it to lunar orbit, they just skip “the logical side” and go for “the touchy-feel side”. Now they want you to just “jump up and do some break-dancing”. In other words, don’t worry – be happy.

What kind of goofy approach is this? NASA wants you to just get up and dance because they want to go have fun playing catch with an asteroid – and who cares why?. To do so they intend to use a rocket they cannot afford to build – a rocket with zero funds for the payloads it is supposed to carry. Oh yes: Congress opposes this mission. Does NASA think that all Congress needs to do is just bust a few dance moves and they will be happy about this too?
These comments speak to a larger, more troubling problem looming at NASA: No one is in charge – so anything goes – no matter how silly it may be.
NASA Selects Ideas For Asteroid Mission It Can’t Explain, earlier post
Bolden’s Confusing Asteroid Mission Rationale (Revised), earlier post
NASA Selects Top 96 Asteroid Initiative Ideas, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

29 responses to “NASA's Goofy New Asteroid Mission Strategy: Don't Worry – Be Happy (Update)”

  1. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    These comments speak to a larger, more troubling problem looming at NASA: No one is in charge – so anything goes – no matter how silly it may be.

    Unless this is part of a convoluted, desperate plan by some at NASA to get Congress to cancel the whole thing — including SLS — by creating the impression that NASA is simply not up to doing BEO HSF missions of value (which it’s not; NASA should not be in the launch operations business. Doing the operations for first instance of anything new that NASA designed makes sense; it’s part of the new product testing, but after that, NASA should be training/updating the contractors to take over operations while NASA moves on to the next something new.).

    Whether or not there is value in the asteroid retrieval mission is irrelevant to this idea; the perception alone, by Congress and the public, might be enough to result in a cancellation. NASA would lose face from this, for a while, but they’re going to lose a lot more face if SLS continues, and no matter what the outcome, NASA will inevitably get blamed.

    So, this apparent nonsense might really be risk management and/or damage control in disguise. I don’t really think this is the case (it sounds too much like an old Mission Impossible episode), but I think it’s possible. And guys like Gerstenmaier would likely be retired from NASA by the time it all falls down. This is just a thought, so don’t worry, be happy.

    • Vic_Seratonin says:
      0
      0

      The chapter entitled ‘The Marsh of Camarina’ in Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot (1995) makes interesting re-reading in this relation to all this.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Even without considering this thread, rereading that chapter every once in a while seems like a good idea to me. However, remember that it was published nearly 20 years ago and some of the content is no longer exactly relevant. For example, if you can catch a threat far enough out to deflect it, then today strapping one or more ion drives onto it makes more sense than blowing it up.

        Personally, I find the chapter very un-Sagan-like. He dismisses the idea of taking active measures because those same measures can be used to create a catastrophe as easily as preventing one. Without going into a long discourse on why, I think he was wrong with that assertion. It was too late to put the genie back in the bottle the first time an ape man picked up a stick or a bone and used his new “tool” as a “weapon.” Escalation has always been a part of human nature, so we need to deal with it, not try to run away from it.

        The thing that Sagan neglects to mention in that chapter is that the danger from impact is only one reason for developing asteroid handling technologies. I think all of the reason have to be considered together before an informed decision can be made.

        And finally, like many people, Sagan, in this chapter, doesn’t deal with the differences between asteroids and comets, which will probably require different techniques to deal with. Still, I agree that the chapter is very much worth reading, even though it’s out of date.

        • Vic_Seratonin says:
          0
          0

          I guess I should have been less elliptical, but it seems to me that in the context of a discussion about ‘why catch an asteroid?’ Sagan sketches out an exemplary role for NASA. He identifies two impact scenarios that warrant the development of asteroid tracking, monitoring and ultimately handling: the natural risk, and the sinister potential of asteroid deflection being misused by military powers. He then (1) posits a clear role for NASA in educating the citizens of democracies to inform rational assessment of either threat (p.323 of the 1995 ed). (2) he then argues that the ‘two classes of peril’ he has described he argues that the threat in the long term demands the establishment of ‘transnational institutions’ (p325) and will ‘force our hand’ (p.326) out into the solar system. The spirit of this strikes me as very much about identifying asteroids as the high ground for thinking big – scientifically, technologically, and morally. His hope – it would seem to me – was that NASA (ie scientific, open, peaceful) was the right channel through which such a process begins.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            NASA … was the right channel through which such a process begins

            Whether or not NASA is the right channel to begin, I think the key point that Sagan makes is the “transnational” approach. And it should have been begun back when his words were written. Putting any international effort into place for anything has proven difficult, often almost impossible, in the past, and when something does happen it tends to have a very finite life time (disarmament, CFCs, carbon footprint, global warning, …).

            Because the initial steps inevitably need to be political, there is always nationalistic mistrust dragging the heels of progress, and commitment with reservations at best.

            There are currently programs in several countries doing work on asteroid detection, tracking and mitigation schemes (less so for comets). Imagine the increase in efficiency and effectiveness if they were all working cooperatively together, pooling their resources, knowledge and funding. It’s not the people doing the actual work who are the road block from making this happen.

            So, I’d say that NASA has two goals in this area: 1) to maintain their own asteroid watch activities (as a minimum); and 2) to attempt to explain and justify the creation of an international body to deal with the entire asteroid and comet problem (the ideal case). If we accept this thinking, then the question with respect to NASA’s announced asteroid program is: does this program address and attempt to solve these goals? Until we have more program details, we can only guess.

            Quite aside from this is an issue that people seem to have just as much trouble buying into — learning to safely and economically acquire resources from space (primarily asteroids) to be refined and used in space and on Earth. This will be necessary sooner than people are willing to accept, and new processes will need to be developed, learned and practiced; Earth methods will not work in either free fall or hard vacuum. There is much to be done.

          • Vic_Seratonin says:
            0
            0

            Yes the points you make are all good ones and on reflection I’d fully endorse what you’re saying. NASA does need to contextualise this initiative as part of a proposed international body to deal with asteroids.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      “guys like Gerstenmaier would likely be retired from NASA by the time it all falls down”

      My guess-if his statement is the best rationale he can come up with, with thousands of people supporting him and planning and writing his speeches, then perhaps he has already retired on the job.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        No no no. Gerst is a great person. No one is – or should be – asking him to retire. But he could use a PR coach – preferably someone who has never set foot inside NASA.

        • Chris Pino says:
          0
          0

          He is both a great person, brilliant, and stays at NASA HQ at some personal cost. He is both a calming, steadying force while having a virtually ironclad memory and understanding of the technical developments he has witnessed and participated in across 30+ years at the agency.

          He also has a dry, mordant wit which, like many remarks taken out of context and without their verbal inflections, can be totally misleading.

          Newspaper editors often seek an attention grabbing story rather than “dull” technology or strategy.

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          Tell us why you think he is great Keith.

          I agree, he is a nice guy, quiet, unassuming.

          However, some of his best, and he desperately needs their help in areas like communicating, he appears to have forced out and he does not really seem to stand by many of his people from my perspective. Yet, Constellation and Orion were over-sized and mismanaged and he appointed many of the leads and continues to support them. His programs seemed to have collapsed around him. Shuttle could have/should have been drawn out so that we did not lose all human launch capability for a decade-NASA may never recover. A Shuttle derived heavy lift should have been pursued early on when it was a lot easier and less expensive to do than five years or more after the assembly lines had been shut down. ISS-oops they forgot to plan for the utilization era and they are still playing catch up. They were too focused on assembly-give me a break, they had more than enough people and expertise to do both.

          I do worry about who might replace him. I have no idea who would be capable of the job but I think NASA needs serious change.

          So tell us why you think he is so great. Maybe some of us will change our minds.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            I have known Bill since we worked together at NASA back in the day. We’re both the same age and have a large number of friends in common. I know where he is coming from, what he believes, and why he does what he does. He lives and breathers what he does and I think NASA is better for having him where he is. Could he use better PR and marketing advice? Yes. He knows that and will admit it if you ask him. Does he try to get better at things like this? Yes. But he is stuck with the tools and people that he is stuck with. His PAO staff should have been all over this once the LA Times piece ran. But they did not. He sought out NASAWatch to respond – personally. His staff were not in on this. Very few people are as straightforward and honest as Bill. There, I said it.

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          I think he needs more than just PAO and marketing advice. He needs that too.

          But I think the reason Gerstenmier is now highlighting break dancing goes back to why an Orion throw away capsule concept is being done at all-everyone was in such a hurry to go somewhere-apparently anywhere, to get out of LEO, that the touchy-feely he is talking about is all about that feeling of goo-gah wonderment people will get when the crew leaves LEO and heads out into the void.

          Remembering Apollo, that wonderment will be a fleeting idea that might last all of ten minutes during the first telecon. And mainly it was exciting during Apollo because we had never done it and no one had ever seen Earth in a hand held TV camera (even if it was fuzzy, b/w and jitterred and wandered around the screen). During Apollo goo-gash wonderment was not planned in advance. It was something the world experienced as the pictureof the century images first came back from Lunar Orbiter and later Apollo.

          If this is the reason for Gerstenmier’s talk about touchy-feely and break dancing, then basically he is counting on planning googah wonderment starting 15-20 years in advance.

          The entire Orion concept of one-time throw away capsules going anyplace is dumb. Maybe the whole idea of touchy-feely break dancing is to try and make all of us taxpayers and Congress see the error of NASA’s botched ways, see just how stupid it is. Gerst seems to be succeeding at that. Maybe his efforts can turn this entire plan around before any more money or time is wasted on it?
          Maybe he is smarter than we thought?

          As far as Keith’s thoughts about why Bill is so great-sorry I don’t see it. Leadership means the guy has to take charge and decide on a path forward and then he needs to align the required resources behind that plan and on that path. Whether those resources are PAO, or speechwriters, or technical management and technology, or whether its the President and Congress. Maybe Bill is too honest, or maybe he lets others too readily call the shots?

          In case no one has noticed the program has collapsed and we are not going in any direction. Chris Kraft said the same a couple weeks ago. Most of us do notice. Landings on Mars are at least half a century away and they will not happen using an Orion capsule approach.

          Gerst isn’t leading. Maybe he could turn it around but his last ten years don’t appear to show him to be capable. I don’t see his brilliance. The guy is lost. So are we all.

  2. Stanley Richard Clark says:
    0
    0

    Finally someone hit the nail on the head “No one is in charge” at NASA, although all claim to be, least of all NASA HQ.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      Yes. We need some stronger leaders otherwise, NASA has all kinds of authorities, lords and fiefdoms down the line that will take advantage of the weakness. But the Asteroid Initiative is a pretty unique event for NASA. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode “Worlds Collide”. “You gotta keep your worlds apart!”, says Independent George that is compromised. It also reminds me of the paradox question when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object – what gives? You have the NASA Manned Program (HEO) colliding with the Science Mission Directorate (SMD). I favor calling SMD the unstoppable force and right now it is destroying or at least defeating the Immovable Object – HEO. SMD lives and dies by its Decadal Surveys. These help set the agenda and drives the selection of robotic missions and keeps their worlds from colliding. I have never heard of a HEO Decadal Survey. If there was ever an oxymoron, that is it! So, we have an incredible collision of the SMD – keen to study asteroids, utilize SEP, further advance robotics versus the HEO that needs a place to send humans on the cheap – to do something useful with naked apes and a new fangled stone tool. HEO is just beyond the monkey in 2001 that tosses his great invention into the air to be transformed into a spaceship. Well, maybe that’s taking the parodies too far but my point is that HEO and SMD have collided. SMD wants asteroid missions to play by their rules. HEO just wants to have something useful to do and I guess have some fun. The first step is the Asteroid Observation program – “Search and Destroy … no I mean “and Catalog”. It is absolutely necessary that we find all the Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) greater than about 20 meters – about 100,000 of them. We can find them, take crude radar images of them and some spectral data. After that you need to study them up close. You can do it once with astronauts, for fun or whatever, but don’t waste money on twice. Robotic missions to study many of them up close are necessary. And it is Step 1-B, Step 1-A being the remote observation program. Step 1-A and 1-B will provide the data that the private sector needs and cannot afford to do themselves, in order to begin using Asteroids as a resource – Mining. And the other reason is to safeguard our precious planet from an impact, be it remote as it is. An impact is low probability but extremely high risk so on a 5×5 matrix, I would paint it yellow at this point because we know that the big NEAs are not a risk any time soon. The Asteroid Initiative for HEO was a way to kill two birds with one stone – literally. NASA knows it needs to find the asteroids (a mandate from congress to find 1 km sized ones) and also to send astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 (Obama’s mandate). The problem is that HEO’s ambitions collided with a segment of the Planetary Decadal Survey and would be likely to suck up 2X the cost estimate for a robotic craft to capture and tow to Earth and Astronauts to fly SLS to a 10 meter space rock. This would be like the Bride of Frankenstein, aka JWST. So I think the A-I RFI was a brilliant idea for gathering new ideas. We should have them more often but I think smart creative ones would quickly realize that NASA is ripping them off. We need to put more money into the Observation program now (step 1-A) and also send inexpensive rendezvous & flyby probes to NEAs (step 1-B). For Step 2 (robotic grab & tow) and Step 3 (SLS & the Naked Apes), I just don’t know. I would assure everyone that we didn’t fake the Moon landings but I would suggest to NASA that we might consider faking the Asteroid Grab, Bag, and send Monkey Business. It would at least save the Taxpayer a fortune and leave funds for some really cool robotic missions, maybe even a robotic built Lunar base for Taiko-Cosmo-Astronauts to visit. And frankly, I love the Asteroid Initiative – all of it. It is really cool. It does the whole 9 yards. If only Congress would give us a $20B budget for 10 years rather than the flat $17B, we could probably do it. Not likely.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Hard to understand this. To me, an outsider, it looks like NASA is populated by good people frustrated by political over reach. As are a lot of people in other fields, I might add.

  3. meekGee says:
    0
    0

    There are as many good reasons to capture and asteroid as there are to land on the moon. From science to technology development.

    If you want to cry “why are we spending billions on that” – you can do so equally well on any space venture.

    The statement that “this is very exciting, we’re going to actually shift the orbit of an asteroid” is spot on.

    The entire operation – going to an asteroid, capturing it, moving it to a convenient orbit, and then having people crawl over it in space suits in zero-g – is straight out of SciFi. If you can’t see that, you’ve gotten too deep into the politics of it.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Then why is NASA so utterly incapable of saying these things when asked why this mission is being done? 99% of the people who are paying for this have no idea why it is being done.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        I think we’ve all said this before on other issues, but it might just come down to the fact that none of these folks have any training for either public speaking or preparing text for public consumption. I’ve found over the years that most people think it’s easy to do and that they can write and speak just fine. They seem to think it’s a natural talent, at least in their own case.

        The unfortunate reality is that most people don’t write or speak effectively and require professional training to be good at it (and some people will never be good at it, no matter how much training they get).

        I don’t expect a plumber to know organic chemistry, so why would I expect and engineer, scientist or manager to know public speaking? The key speakers at NASA need to be trained to communicate. We end up with the impression on many issues that they “don’t know” when maybe the truth is that they just don’t know how to communicate effectively (the truth is probably somewhere in the middle).

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        When Gemini was docking to practice that procedure, over and over, no one shot down the “new” technological achievement it was. NASA will shift the orbit of an object in outer space. If MUSK proposed this, you would think it was visionary Keith. I think you are not being unfair. OK so NASA cannot spit it out. The fact of it is self evident. meekGee is right. When you consider that the ocean liner Costa Concordia is off the Italian coast and STILL cannot be put back upright by humans on earth, bringing an Asteroid to near earth orbit, and bringing back the crew alive and well is going to be a great achievement. If people don’t like it, don’t think it is enough, that is fine, but this is not “nothing.”

    • gbaikie says:
      0
      0

      “There are as many good reasons to capture and asteroid as there are to
      land on the moon. From science to technology development.”

      Yes, there many good reasons to land on the Moon, but it’s is necessary for NASA state what these are. And not just a laundry list of possible reasons, but rather to prioritize the rationalization for using tax payers’ money.

      I think the main reason NASA should land anything on the Moon is establish whether or not there is minable lunar water on the Moon.
      If there was commercially minable lunar water, this would mean greater access to the Moon. It also is source of water in space which can be used for Manned Mars mission. Also a source of rocket fuel which can be used for any missions to Mars. If you assume that in order for lunar water to be minable, a necessary requirement is large quantities of lunar water needs to mined [100 tons per year or more] and one needs to export lunar rocket fuel and water off the lunar surface.
      This reason indicates why NASA should explore the Moon prior to Manned Mars.
      Because there may minable lunar water on the Moon, but this isn’t known there is little chance that commercial lunar mining

      will begin in the near future. Because before anyone will spend billion of dollars, they need more information other a there might a good possibility that there is water in the range 2% to 8% if crater dug 20 meter diameter wide and 4 meters deep. What is needed is good estimation of where are thebest locations one could mine lunar water.

      As far mission to get a rock, it seems the most important aspect is the vehicle used to bring the rock back to an orbit near the Moon- such a vehicle could have many purposes other than just bringing a +500 ton rock back to space in Earth. It could move a gas station to Mars orbit. It could move other cargo to Mars orbit. It move fuel depots at LEO to High earth orbit. It move vehicles destined to Mars from LEO to Earth orbit. It could move ISS to high earth orbit.

      Another equally important aspect is the finding of space rock which smaller than 10 meter in diameter which are low delta-v
      differences to Earth. If finding 10 meter diameter and smaller space rocks, you also finding larger rocks which may in the future impact Earth- like the rock which impacted in Russian injuring people, though the rock could slightly bigger and instead injuring people due mostly breaking glass windows,
      it kill people- but just breaking a lot glass in say, New York City could lethal and very costly.

      So getting the small rock, has the exploration of all small rocks near Earth. And building the capability of having a large space tug.
      We already have program to look at rocks that could impact Earth- it started by focusing rocks 1 km in diameter, due to this size having greatest threat to people on Earth. It has detected most of the rocks 1 km and larger, and now focusing on rocks which about 1/5th this size, as these next greatest threat. This is a small and inexpensive program- and it seems
      like good to idea to more effort into this program and also provide funding for finding smaller rocks. It doubtful anyone could argue with this. But it’s not major program type expense, but it’s something one would need to do before getting a rock.
      If the idea was to increase this program so as to find 10 meter diameter rock, is less than 1 decade, that would require very significant increase in this program’s capability. And the best way to do this would would direction one should pursue.

      As for big space tugs, it seem we should start with smaller space tugs. So you have program to working towards getting
      an operational large space tug.

  4. jski says:
    0
    0

    I do believe these comments peg the buffoon-o-meter! What kind of idiocy is behind this “plan”.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      An awful lot of people have been saying for a long time that NASA needs to commumicate with various public groups each in their own way. It looks like maybe he made an attempt to follow this doctrine and, for whatever reason, it flopped.

  5. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    Maybe Bill Nye could do the dancing? Seems to be his style.

    “Shift the orbit of an asteroid”-more like a rock in a pick up truck. We’re not moving mountains here; or even visiting an active volcano.

    Astronauts exiting Orion to stretch 10 feet away from the hatch-maybe even fifteen feet. Wowee!

    Come on Gerst. We used to have respect for you or at least for the position of AA. This sort of talk is really disenchanting, especially coming from someone in your position.

  6. Chris Pino says:
    0
    0

    Maybe Gerst was being funny or sarcastic.

  7. sch220 says:
    0
    0

    I am astounded that Gerst would say such a stupid thing. For the last few years, he seemed to be the only high-level NASA official that had any good sense. Trivializing the discussion of ARRM using references to break dancing and pop culture is ridiculous, unless you actually want the mission to go away. Perhaps this is Gerst’s real intent.

    • Littrow says:
      0
      0

      “I am astounded that Gerst would say such a stupid thing.”

      I’m not sure I’d agree.

      Most of the time I would say that Gerst has said and done little. It wasn’t leadership but at least he did not look stupid by saying stupid things.

      I think his lack of leadership is a major reason why the whole of human space flight is in the situation it is in. Make no mistake he is the pre-eminent head of human space flight in the US and has been for about a decade. He certainly had the job; he had the responsibility and he had the ears of the people who counted so he could have had serious influence over the design, plan, and configuration of Constellation or Orion or MPCV or SLS or over the extension of Shuttle, or over early development of a Shuttle derived booster or other aspects of improving the plan for the program.

      Some will say that it was all Griffin’s or Garver’s or Holdren’s or Bolden’s or Obama’s or the Congress’ doing, but in reality Gerstenmaier was the one in the lead technical role who had the job to make sure people understood the technical rationale and goal and to explain what might go wrong if they did not support.

      Gerstenmaier had the first hand experience of managing the big programs, Shuttle and Station and he had the confidence of most of the higher level managers though if you look deeper he really never did very much in R&D or phase zero thinking; he only took over already well established programs and organizations and seemed to effect little influence when he would take over. I would say his typical mode was to say and do little. He should have been surrounding himself with people to help with the plans and to make sure they were adequately defined, technically implementable and thoroughly communicated. Communications was one of his most important jobs. This time he said something that lets on just how little leadership there really is. No technical rationale at all.

      I’m with Keith Cowing. There might be rationale for an asteroid mission-maybe as a test flight of the Orion system. But these sorts of words that we should disregard technical rationale and instead dance our way to happiness is not the way to demonstrate that NASA knows what it is doing.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        There’s zero rationale for SLS, MPCV or a ridiculous asteroid retrieval mission. If there was, NASA would be able to articulate them. So far nothing of any substance has been forthcoming.
        Give us all a break, it’ about jobs so let’s just be honest and not lead anyone on regarding really progressing hsf and exploration.

  8. Robert Clark says:
    0
    0

    IF that is true, then we can only look forward to the next administration.

    Bob Clark

  9. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Geez what we really need is a long term strategy for human spaceflight. I mean long term, as in forever. Colonization of other planets, autonomous robotic precursors, in-situ resource utilization, fuel depots, the whole nine yards. Even if we work toward it slowly, at least we’ll get somewhere. The asteroid mission could be a piece of it sure if it makes sense. Right now though the only long term strategy I really see is the shifting of some responsibilities to private sector to start building a real space marketplace. It pisses me off that New Gingrich got laughed at over Moon colonies. Come on USA.