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.
Exploration

Congress, NAC, SBAG, Question Asteroid Mission

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 1, 2014
Filed under ,

Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chair Smith Statement on NASA Advisory Council Recommendations
“Contrary to this administration’s rhetoric, the President’s proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) has many skeptics within the scientific community. And the experts who advise NASA recently stepped up their criticism. The NASA Advisory Council warns that NASA ‘runs the risk of squandering precious national resources’ if they move forward with ARM. One expert, Mr. Tom Young, went so far as to say that the ARM proposal ‘dumbed down NASA.’ For months, the Obama administration has downplayed such criticism. I appreciate the good work of NASA’s technical advisors and encourage the Obama administration to take their recommendations seriously.”
SBAG Asteroid Redirect Mission Special Action Team, July 2014 presentation
Report of the Small Bodies Assessment Group Asteroid Redirect Mission Special Action Team, 30 July 2014 (Draft)
“This report summarizes discussions and findings of the SBAG ARM SAT. The report will be presented at the SBAG meeting on July 30, 2014, and made available to the SBAG community for comment. The report will be finalized in August, 2014, following the opportunity period for comments. The SBAG ARM SAT echoes the statement in the CAPTEM ARM report: of necessity, this is a preliminary report. If such a mission goes forward, we recommend that the prioritization of the science, planetary defense, and resource utilization requirements be refined through a more comprehensive process.”
Future of NASA’s Human Spaceflight Program Dominates NAC Meeting, SpacepolicyOnline
“Another criticism is that NASA does a poor job of explaining why it is pursuing ARM. Williams used a chart with several bullets, one of which pointed to ARM’s role in demonstrating techniques that could be used to defend Earth from potentially hazardous asteroids — planetary defense. During questioning about those bullets, Bolden quickly chimed in to say that planetary defense is NOT a goal of ARM. It is a goal of the Asteroid Grand Challenge, which NASA is funding at $7 million in FY2014, he said, but not of ARM. He acknowledged that because NASA is doing both ARM and the Grand Challenge, there is a lot of confusion. “We need to get that confusion out of it. We are not saving the planet,” he exclaimed. However, many other NASA officials, including Williams, include planetary defense in the list of rationales for ARM. Scott Hubbard insisted that NASA needs to have a single bullet explaining why ARM is needed, not a list of them, in any case.”

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

30 responses to “Congress, NAC, SBAG, Question Asteroid Mission”

  1. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    NASA Watch seems to have missed the most significant commentary made in the NAC this week, by Tom Young, who is one of the most experienced and noted NAC participants, who said that NASA is “collectively perpetrating a fraud” by pretending the program is executable. He added that the country will spend $160 billion on human spaceflight over the next 20 years and be only “negligibly closer” to landing humans on Mars.

    • Panice says:
      0
      0

      Eric Berger said it best in the Houston Chronicle: “The reality is that NASA came to ARM because with its current budget it can’t afford to do anything else. That’s reality we either live with, we give NASA a lot more money to actually use the SLS and do something meaningful like return to the moon or Mars, or we change NASA’s strategy.”

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Its hard to listen to two events happening simultaneously i.e. SBAG and NAC.

  2. Todd Martin says:
    0
    0

    SBAG continues to fight for a Silo approach of NASA funding (Get off meh Lawn!). “While the SBAG committee finds that there is great scientific value in sample return missions from asteroids such
    as OSIRIS-REx, ARRM has been defined as not being a science mission, nor is it a cost effective way to address science goals achievable through sample return. Candidate ARRM targets are
    limited and not well identified or characterized. Robotic sample return missions can return higher science value samples by selecting from a larger population of asteroids, and can be accomplished at significantly less cost (as evidenced by the OSIRIS-REx mission). Support of
    ARRM with planetary science resources is not appropriate.” The SBAG ARM SAT continues to support this and other previous SBAG findings.”
    So, if ARRM is say 25% efficient in returning Science in comparison to a dedicated Science only mission, SBAG still wants Planetary Science to contribute 0% funding even though they would receive some science. This kind of thinking is short-sighted and capricious.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      If Science is asked to pay 50% of a mission that returns 25% of the science, they would be more successful using all their money to fund conventional science missions.

      • Todd_Martin says:
        0
        0

        I agree. If Science is asked to pay 10% of a mission that returns 25% of the science, then it is a steal. Flatly recommending ZERO financial support regardless of the ROI is just plain wrong. An ARRM mission would hire planetary scientists, would include science instruments, and could increase the overall funding for the Science community.

        • rebeccar1234 says:
          0
          0

          Reading the above, percentages seem the wrong comparison. In your example, Science pays 10% of the cost, while and 25% of the payoff is “for them.” Sounds like a bargain, but if Science could do its own thing with that 10% and get back more or better science, then the above is not such a good deal. Not saying they can, but ROI should be in absolute dollars, not percentages of different missions.

  3. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Any Congressional body that sits quietly while SLS goes forward should shut its fat collective yap about NASA wasting resources.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      I agree, and that in a era of limited resources, NASA should choose another way. However, that being said. Our federal budget has increased by over a TRILLION dollars since 2005 and yet NASA’s resources are no more than then.

      I am not known to be, nor am I a fan of SLS, but what we have now is a misallocation of federal resources to unproductive activities in other areas that are far more egregious than what is up with NASA.

      So, to heck with it, double NASA’s budget and let them get on with it. That is less than the increase in many departments over the last several years…

      • spacegaucho says:
        0
        0

        NASA’s budget is not going to double. Once sequester caps are back in place, NASA’s budget is likely to be reduced. Tom Young is correct if he is characterizing the Mars plans as a fraud in the same vein as the shuttle making access to space routine and cheap and the space station more than paying for itself from the fruits of the research performed on it. Mars just isn’t going to happen anytime soon given budget realities and NASA’s unwillingness to move out on the risk curve.
        How can Bolden say that we wouldn’t develop capabilities for planetary defense by executing ARM?
        If properly presented, ARM should be able to garner much more public support than a manned Mars mission.

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          Your logic escapes me. You say that since preparation for Marsis a fraud, ARM should be embraced as a measure for planetary protection.

          Young said that Orion and SLS are a fraud not only because they do not get is to Mars but because they cannot be safely flown. The programs are too expensive, and flying a mission every couple years is unsafe.

          And ARM has nothing to do with planetary protection. Those are a different class of asteroids and ARM provides no useful or applicable technology or operational experience of value.

          • spacegaucho says:
            0
            0

            Any time you are interacting with an asteroid you are gaining SOME applicable experience for planetary protection

        • ReSpaceAge says:
          0
          0

          Properly presented??

          Wouldn’t that be doing it without SLS and Orion to get money into commercial and future capability?

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          …NASA’s budget is not going to double….

          ______________________________________

          I did not say it was. What I did say is that since our federal budget has increased by a TRILLION dollars a YEAR, that in a rational world, space exploration (not necessarily NASA) should have a far larger share of federal resources than it gets today.

          The very fact that the federal budget has increased by this amount, with zero of this increase going to NASA indicates, not that we don’t have the money, but that at the federal level our sense of priorities is seriously wrong.

          What we have today is a government that seeks to provide for the general welfare. Our founding fathers and most Americans over the life of the republic knew that this is an impossible quest and this is why in the preamble to the constitution the word is PROMOTE, the general welfare.

          The canals of the 18th century promoted the general welfare.

          The national railroad, funded even in the midst of the war between the states, promoted the general welfare, pushed to happen by a former railroad lawyer who became president.

          The Panama Canal

          The national highway act of 1926.

          The Airmail Act

          The Interstate and Defense Highway Act of 1956.

          ALL OF THESE projects promoted the general welfare of corporations, the public, and every single American by building infrastructure.

          Aerospace has deteriorated into the worst kind of crony capitalism, pushed by a few Senators without the vision or brains God gave a gnat.

          There is no such thing as a budget reality, the truth of the matter is that it is easier to buy votes in other ways led by politicians who simply don’t give a damn about the welfare of the nation.

          • ReSpaceAge says:
            0
            0

            Not necessarily NASA?

            Sounds to me like Spacex is ready to be the builder of the highways to the Solar system.

            I can’t understand continuing SLS and Orion for any reason. Doesn’t SLS poison NASA if it continues? Doesn’t NASA just look more out of touch to the voter. Won’t Falcon Heavy kill SLS once it flies Anyway.

            In the motley fool article

            A poster said that if rockets fly 40 times that the cost to build that rocket gets more expensive do to fixed costs and maintaining labor force and such. But wouldn’t Spacex then have more resources/ people available to build landers and service modules and fuel depots?

            He wouldn’t just let his people waste time and money like NASA does.

            Let’s have another meeting about it.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Can you translate what you wrote into readable English?

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I’ll translate Mr.Squared

      • Bennett In Vermont says:
        0
        0

        I agree 100%. Given the increases in other budgets (EPA comes to mind) upping NASA’s share of the Federal budget seems a no brainer.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          What has NASA done in the last several decades that warrants an increase in budget?
          Cheers.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            That’s kind of a bad argument. Budget increases don’t occur solely because an agency has “done well” in the past. It can certainly have bearing though.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Ok on the surface it may seem that way however how does one go about justifying requested increases?
            Generally past successes provide a degree of confidence that that will continue and the reverse is true as well.
            Historically in the hsf field at least, it hasn’t gone so well. Maybe not all NASA’s fault but they ultimately carry the can for their projects and programs.
            Cheers.

  4. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    If I’m not mistaken but visiting an asteroid was proposed by Lockheed Martin when its Orion CEV/MPCV was salvaged from the wreckage of Constellation. So unless we receive a decree from the White House (highly unlikely given Obama’s closed to the press meeting with the surviving crewmen of Apollo 11) then Charlie B and co see no reason to do otherwise.
    Never mind that SLS will miss its targeted maiden launchdate due to funding shortfalls, there is no urgency to do anything meaningful in American HSF beyond ISS. In fact, no nation is exhibiting any interest. Truly depressing times we live in.

  5. Robert Clark says:
    0
    0

    There is also the fact that none of NASA’s own astronauts want it:

    Where Do We Go From Here?
    Posted: 12/23/2013 5:11 pm
    Clayton Anderson.
    U.S. Astronaut (Ret.); ISS and Space Shuttle spacewalker; Aquanaut
    and soon-to-be Author.

    While I was still an astronaut, and an
    astronaut veteran at that, then
    Associate Administrator for spaceflight Lori
    Garver came to speak to the
    Astronaut Corps. A private meeting, just Ms.
    Garver and an attentive group
    of type A personalities, I would venture to
    guess there were about 40-45 of
    us “space fliers” seated in the room. A bit
    of a “rah, rah” meeting, touting
    NASA’s work in the world of commercial
    spaceflight (and I think commercial
    spaceflight is a good thing, but that’s
    another op-ed!), she asked us all a
    significant question. After some
    perfunctory remarks, she asked us to raise
    our hands if “we thought that Mars
    should be our next destination?” Three
    astronauts raised their hands. Next,
    she offered the question again, but
    this time replacing the Red Planet with
    the option of an asteroid as our
    next destination. No one… that’s right, no
    one, raised a hand. When she
    finally asked us about our near-neighbor the
    moon, every astronaut, save the
    three that voted for Mars, raised their
    hands.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.c

    Bob Clark

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Well guess none of them are going to get anywhere while NASA continues on the SLS and Orion course. Moon, Mars, ARM, they’re all just fantasies.
      A number have recognized this and bailed to the private sector. Those that are left are hanging out no doubt for commercial to the ISS.
      Cheers

  6. Robert Clark says:
    0
    0

    All the commentaries have been saying that the SLS can not go to the Moon, Mars, or out to near Earth asteroids in their actual location because lack of funding.
    But in point of fact there IS a solution and it’s one that NASA has already proven effective – commercial space.
    In NASA’s commercial cargo program both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences were able to develop both launchers and space capsules for 1/10th the cost of usual fully-government financed systems. If this approach were taken to develop the extra systems required such as planetary or lunar landers, then the additional cost would only be a fraction of what is already being spent on the SLS and Orion.
    What would be needed is for the supporters of SLS/Orion and the commercial space supporters to accept a compromise where the SLS would be used but all other systems would follow the commercial space approach in their development.
    In this way we could go to the Moon, Mars and the NEA’s.

    Bob Clark

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      It’s much less expensive to forget SLS and go with an alternate, cheaper system, a system like SpaceX’s upcoming Falcon Heavy or a Falcon Heavy variant with Raptor engines. I’d wager the latter will fly before SLS, will have comparable payload capacity, and will cost far less. It’s a given that Falcon Heavy will fly well before SLS and will fly more often than SLS (increasing safety as opposed to the decrease in safety that will result from the rare SLS flight, assuming SLS does fly). It’s very hard to see anything good about SLS.

  7. Jack Burton says:
    0
    0

    The Obama admins asteroid mission will simply never happen. Obama never even speaks of it or even NASA at all, he will be very much a lame duck soon if not already.