Administration confirms NASA plan: Grab an asteroid, then focus on Mars

[bananas]

Source: NBC

NASA's accelerated vision for exploration calls for moving a near-Earth asteroid even nearer to Earth, sending out astronauts to bring back samples within a decade, and then shifting the focus to Mars, a senior Obama administration official told NBC News on Saturday.

The official said the mission would "accomplish the president's challenge of sending humans to visit an asteroid by 2025 in a more cost-effective and potentially quicker time frame than under other scenarios." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because there was no authorization to discuss the plan publicly.

The source said more than $100 million would be sought for the mission and other asteroid-related activities in its budget request for the coming fiscal year, which is due to be sent to Congress on Wednesday. That confirms comments made on Friday by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a one-time spaceflier who is now chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space. It also confirms a report about the mission that appeared last month in Aviation Week.

The asteroid retrieval mission is based on a scenario set out last year by a study group at the Keck Institute for Space Studies. NASA's revised scenario would launch a robotic probe toward a 500-ton, 7- to 10-meter-wide (25- to 33-foot-wide) asteroid in 2017 or so. The probe would capture the space rock in a bag in 2019, and then pull it to a stable orbit in the vicinity of the moon, using a next-generation solar electric propulsion system. That would reduce the travel time for asteroid-bound astronauts from a matter of months to just a few days.

<snip>

Read more: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/06/17630481-administration-confirms-nasa-plan-grab-an-asteroid-then-focus-on-mars

[enlightenment]

1. That asteroid catching thing

reminds me of those old toys - the one with the ball on a string and you tried to catch it in a cup. I was pretty good at that . . . do you suppose they'd let me drive this one?

[PolitFreak]

82. No

They've already got Bruce Willis.

[enlightenment]

83. Drat.

[Uncle Joe]

90. You mean this one?

[enlightenment]

91. Yep!

I loved that toy - I didn't bash myself in the face with it nearly as much as I did with the "clacker balls" . . .

[Mike Nelson]

2. Good news...

...I hope we settle space before destroying our planet.

[Posteritatis]

3. I'd love to see NASA be allowed to plan something ambitious without getting axed for a change. (nt)

[Volaris]

26. Yep. my response this thread was going to be:

"Oh, Christ, just do Mars, and get it done already. The tech is there (mostly), only thing lacking is the will."

[Posteritatis]

38. That and each congress killing the previous one's projects with NASA

How many NASA programs have gotten axed ninety percent of the way towards getting something off the ground, after vast sums of money were already spent on them? I can't keep track, but it's enough that I feel pretty cynical about anything someone tells NASA to do whose timelines extend past a general election.

It's not even the organization's fault, either; it's just that they're convenient to hate on both sides of the political spectrum. When I hear "launch in 2017" or something along those lines, it takes a lot for me to not instantly jump to "cancelled in 2016, after the spacecraft's already built."

[Volaris]

41. Right. I'm of the opinion that once budgetary monies have been assigned to specific Federal Agencies

that Agency has control over how it is spent. A new Congress can bitch all it wants about the AMOUNT the last Congress spent on NASA, but once NASA has the cash, they can buy what they think appropriate to the best interest of the American People. The only exception would be if NASA had a Black Budget or some such nonsense.

[Posteritatis]

43. The problem is that project budgets are assigned over several years

If something costs, say, $16 billion and is going to take eight years to get off the ground, Congress could cheerfully assign the funding for seven of those years and it would get spent, but the eighth would still wreck an entire project if they decided the agency needed to lose a few thousand staff and a couple of facilities Right Now because a Proxmire or someone like that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Volaris]

45. ok that makes sense.

sucks, but it makes sense.

[LongTomH]

4. Interesting news! I remember the old days of the L5 Society and the debate over......

.....lunar vs asteroid resources for space-based manufacturing. I wonder if someone in the Obama Administration is thinking along the lines of asteroid resource utilization - for either Earth or space.

[bananas]

27. Good question. It's really interesting how this is developing. nt

[Cleita]

5. So, what are they using for money? My Social Security?

I'm all for space exploration, which is a job creating device that is much better than war, but with all this talk of robbing seniors to pay for deficits and all, I'm just really concerned about what they intend to use for money?

[Canuckistanian]

6. The Pentagon spends more money on air conditioners than NASA's entire budget

Just to keep things in perspective.

http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget

[Cleita]

19. Yes, but must those air conditioners come from my Social Security?

Just asking.

[Posteritatis]

22. Is it really asking when you've already decided what the answer is? (nt)

[Cleita]

23. It's a fair question. Where will the money come from?

Will it come from military spending cuts or cuts to my Social Security, which if you haven't noticed is all over the news this week? Apparently, there never will be raises in taxes in the foreseeable future, so the expense will have to come from cuts elsewhere.

[Autumn]

25. You can bet your ass it ain't coming from the military budget.

Or tax breaks for the wealthy and corporation so I guess we pay for it with cuts to those who can least afford it.

[Posteritatis]

39. NASA has its own budget, you know. (nt)

[Heywood J]

81. Off-topic a bit, but I wonder where those condenser and evaporator units went after the pull-out.

I wonder if they're on sale as surplus somewhere, stuck in a warehouse while they rot, or if they disappeared into line-item limbo.

[L0oniX]

7. Don't worry. It'll be a "chained" asteroid. n/t

[pscot]

9. Another WTF moment

from an administration that seems to specialize in them.

[denbot]

10. Nothing "WTF" about it.

The benefits from space exploration far exceeds the outlays. There are roughly 7 billion souls swarming over the face of this planet, we need to establish some suburbs.

[Phlem]

13. I hear you

but we do have suburbs already, that are crumbling.



-p

[pscot]

14. Ooh look. Shiny object

It's a meaningless distraction. I am prepared, however, to offer you a future option on a condominium apartment on Mars. In fact, I happen to have a contract with me.

[denbot]

16. Ground breaking has to be done.

It is our destiny.

[pscot]

18. Given the news from the AGW front

our destiny as a species is looking brief and pain filled.

[Katashi_itto]

33. Meaningless post. Educate yourself.

[No Vested Interest]

8. Forgive me, but this sort of thing

gives me the creeps.

Glad I'll likely not be around to see it all come to fruition.
But then, I have to admit I was frightened of the idea of a earthling landing on the moon.

[CobblePuller]

74. Huh?!

Why?

[Tx4obama]

11. Kick n/t

[LisaL]

12. Grabbing an asteroid?

What could possibly go wrong?

[Katashi_itto]

15. A Low information snark

[LisaL]

17. Of course.

Considering nothing done by NASA ever went wrong.

[Posteritatis]

21. And more low information snark! (nt)

[Katashi_itto]

32. +1000

The guy just shovels it deeper.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Apparently, there are some who believe that nothing done by NASA every went wrong.

Watch out. They'll start calling you names.

[Posteritatis]

20. I dunno, maybe learn a thing or two about the mission and then spout off. (nt)

[AAO]

35. They lose control and it hurdles towards earth and crashes into New York City?

[Posteritatis]

37. Because Earth is such a colossal target in space and all.

If that happened it'd be because they were very carefully aiming it.

[AAO]

44. I don't agree at all. When you are orbiting the moon it's pretty damn big!

[Posteritatis]

46. Then you have no idea whatsoever how big space is and should probably stop highlighting that. (nt)

[AAO]

48. We aren't discusing the whole fucking universe here!

If you want to be obstinate then keep it up. You're the one that's looking like the fool here.

Oh, and just as a reading comprehension lesson, the post I replied to asked "what's the worst that could happen" or something like that. Are you telling me this scenario is impossible? Are you telling me NASA won't be giving that possibility, no matter how remote, at least a few moments thought? If so, you will look like even a bigger fool!

[Posteritatis]

65. No, we're discussing cislunar space, which is nine hundred thousand times the size of the Earth. nt

[reACTIONary]

49. The plan is to snag a smallish astroid... the kind that...

...burns up in the atmosphere all the time. If they lose control and it hurdles toward earth, it becomes a light show. No big deal.

[AAO]

53. What if it is made out of solid iron? It could make it through..

[longship]

56. They already would know if it was iron.

It's first an exploration mission, then capture and move it. And again, it's a small one, the kind that hits the earth's atmosphere all the time with nothing but a light show.

Those are the explicit parameters of the mission.

So, not worth panicking about.

[AAO]

58. I'm not panicked at all. Just making meaningless banter on a Sunday.

Good Sunday to you longship!

[longship]

61. And to you, my friend.

Speaking of asteroids, here's Phil Plait's TED talk about them. (He's the Bad Astronomer, for those who don't know him.)

Enjoy!

[AAO]

62. Thank you! n/t

[octothorpe]

59. What if it has an alien virus that turns us all into zombies...

[AAO]

60. That is a consideration for the zombiephiles.

[reACTIONary]

64. NASA Scientists and engineers are a bit smarter...

...than your average bear. They aren't flying by the seat of their pants. The initial budget request (according to the rumint) is to fund a multi-year survey program just to identify likely targets.

Don't worry, they REALLY DO know what they are doing.

[kentauros]

89. How about asking instead

"What could possibly go right?"

NASA has done far more things right than wrong (and don't forget that they aren't just about space sciences, i.e., the 'A' standing for Aeronautics.)

Grabbing an asteroid would be a major project and the very moving of one takes long periods of time. Any mistakes can be corrected over the course of the moving part. Then again, we've sent tiny robot-probes to the planets, and while those planets are massive, they are quite small over those vast distances. And yet, we not only got into orbit around them, but then maneuvered the probes into very close and not disastrous flybys of their moons.

So, I'd rather focus on the strong majority of what NASA has done right, than the minuscule possibilities of doing something wrong. And when they do this particular project right, will you come back to these threads and admit you were wrong to doubt them?

[bloomington-lib]

24. So taxpayers will fund the development of asteroid mining technology so it can then be

turned over to the private sector so they can make the profit for themselves? I say if we're funding it, it should be a mining company for the people, not for the 1%.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. I agree.........

But that would make too much sense AND interfere with profit. So it'll never happen.

[bubbayugga]

30. the private sector would require many skilled workers also from the private sector

and would pay them very well for their contribution.

[Katashi_itto]

34. Buzz. Wrong answer. Planetary Resources, a Private asteroid mining co. is already planning

robotic asteroid mining by 2017-2018

[reACTIONary]

50. Planetary Resources, a Private DATA mining web page...

...is trolling for suckers.

[Katashi_itto]

57. What the hell are you talking about?

[reACTIONary]

63. I went to their web site...

...and the site kept pestering me for my email address so I could keep up with the "mission". My bet is that this is a "list development" operation that then hits up anyone who signs in for contributions, buy tee-shirts, etc. When the well runs dry they sell your contact info so someone else.

Mining asteroids is a pretty ridiculous idea - saying your going to do it by 2018 is a ludicrous lie.

As I tell my son, whenever you visit a web site ask yourself "how do they make their money"??? It costs time, effort and money to maintain a web site, so where does that come from? It doesn't come from venture capitalists, who would know better than the invest real money in so transparent a scam. So where does it come from? From their email list, is my guess.

[Katashi_itto]

67. Damn, you have no clue do you? None at all

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

"It costs time, effort and money to maintain a web site, so where does that come from?"

Snicker...Example: I personally have a small business website...we are SMALL.

In our two & half years of operation. Our website has had 2.2 million hits. With barely ANY marketing.

My start up cost was...Ooo about 20-30$. Monthly cost? Zero.

Ours is a free website. We just look very polished. AND Mines a tiny operation. Minuscule. Hardly a blot.

PR doesn't need a website in any great way. They aren't selling to the same market that I or most other business sell to.

What Planetary Resources is more on the massive scale of startup General Electric. It's huge.

Do you have any idea who backs Planetary Resources? Any idea at all?

It has the backing of Ross Perot Jr., Google Chief Executive Officer Larry Page and Chairman Eric Schmidt, and former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Co-Chairman John Whitehead.

Also backed by James Cameron the film director.

Every one of them billionaires.

Getting your name is not a big deal to them,

2018 target is a piece of cake.

We already have several private launch vehicles to get the robot miners into orbit. The big key is long range cost effectiveness. To mine the ore for pennies on the ton.

Your various statements are ludicrous. It almost sounds like what I would see posted by freepers

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Planetary-Resources-adds-rich-investors-3770522.php#ixzz2Po90CrgM

[reACTIONary]

87. I'm building a satellite right now for launch in 2018...

... while their web site has a non-answer to the question "how do you plan to mine in a low gravity environment" (answer: "we don't know&quot , I have a more fundamental question... how do you plan to communicate with the satellite? We've submitted our com plan to the DSN - have they?

From the article you linked to: Planetary Resources intends to launch a telescopic space surveyor into Earth's low orbit in less than two years to identify potential metal- and water-rich asteroids and begin prospecting within four years.

Putting a satellite into LEO is doable - commercial firms do this frequently, for communications and imaging. Pretty hum-drum stuff, but if they want to - more power to them.

So, your right, this isn't a scam web site trolling for suckers - its a vanity PR stunt for upper-class twits.

PS: I found this on the wiki entry: The "unveiling" press conference was held at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington on Tuesday, April 24, 2012. Tickets for this event were offered for sale to the general public at a basic price of (U.S.) $25.00, and were sold out.

Tickets for a "press conference". They've moved a notch back toward the scam category.

[Katashi_itto]

88. You really aren't high on the critical thinking skills, have you thought about joining Freeperville?

They are really more your speed.

[reACTIONary]

96. I don't know, the freepers...

...seem to be as much for it as against it. A lot of them liked Newt's moon colony, and think this is just as good. I think they are about right... moon colony, asteroid mining, what's the diff? But I don't consider that to be a GOOD thing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2874745/posts

[Katashi_itto]

97. Jeezus is you need the benefits spelled out..

[reACTIONary]

98. Tell you what, let's...

...meet up in '17-'18 and compare notes. It'll all be apparent by about then.

[Katashi_itto]

99. Yes. it will.

[reACTIONary]

51. Whats wrong with that?

Government investment in risky new technology followed by transition to private enterprise is a rational, workable economic development model. It's been done over and over again and we are all better off for it.

[bloomington-lib]

73. I see it like most public resources-turned private. Say schools for example. We paid for the

infrastructure, the research for what method works, and training a huge number of people to staff it. We then give what belongs to us as a whole, to a small number of people. They reduce the workforce, increase the work, increase the costs for a product that is less than what it was when it belonged to all of us.

I agree that the public should invest in risky new technology for the better of us all, but if we're giving them the equipment and the know-how to perform a function such as mining, give us a discount on what's being dug up. If I give you the land, the people, and the shovels, and you charge me a high price for what you take out, I'm going to bitch about it. Simple as that.

[Autumn]

28. I like NASA, let's give them half of the military budget.

And them cut the military budget in half and quit cutting the fucking safety net.

[Occulus]

69. Hell, give NASA FIVE PERCENT of the military budget and get out of the way.

We'll be colonizing Luna by 2030 and Mars by 2050. At the latest.

[Autumn]

70. So true, but what the fuck, let's cut that milatary budget in half

spread the wealth. Such a vast wonderful universe waiting to be seen and we spend everything on war.

[Occulus]

72. By the time we're talking about, we'll already have fusion power

and the lack of necessity to go to war for oil will allow such a reduction. Or, perhaps, a shift, as we move our wars into space.

Our military budget can not and will not decrease unless and until we have a viable replacement for the burning of petroleum products as a means of propulsion. Fusion power can, and will, be that replacement.

Lockheed announced recently that they will have a working fusion power plant in operation by 2018. Their claim, and the physical descriptions of their device, match the claims and descriptions of Dr. Robert Bussard's "Polywell" IEC fusion device, currently being researched with help of Naval funding at the EMC2 lab in the Southwest. After reading Lockheed's announcement, I am confident they have hit upon a working design, and all that's left is to build the thing.

Last year they (EMC2) announced the Navy had re-upped their funding. Then news from EMC2 went dark. I believe Lockheed does occasionally talk to the Navy R&D types.

We are on the cusp of not only a new era of power generation, but in fact about to reach a fairly major signpost on the road of human history. Fusion power will enable us to produce orbital farms and habitats, colonize the Moon and Mars, and mine the asteroids. In addition, fusion engines will make extrasolar missions to nearby stars a plausible venture.

We may be on the brink of the single most significant technological development since the discovery of electricity itself. This may end up being the most significant single human advance since fire and the wheel. I'm not being hyperbolic, here- working fusion reactors really would be that large and that significant an advance.

[AdHocSolver]

31. April 6, 2025: OOPs! Incorrect data entry places asteroid orbit through central United States.

NASA and its contractors have started blaming each other for the looming disaster.

NASA is blaming the software contractor for hiring inadequately trained personnel to program the robotic probe.

Meanwhile, the contractor is blaming NASA for allowing a virus to infect their computer network, which they claim is the real cause of the glitch.

The manufacturer of the rocket announced that a tear in the asteroid "bag" may release it too soon making any guess as to the actual orbit of the asteroid unpredictable at this time.

Here on earth, the operators of the Keystone XL pipeline, which has experienced numerous leaks almost from the beginning, has told the U.S. government that it will refuse to pay for any cleanup resulting from the asteroid damaging its pipeline.

The pipeline operator has been slow to clean up previous spills and large parts of Nebraska are still uninhabitable.

[AAO]

36. I could read that in a newspaper, and while SHOCKED, It wouldn't surprise me. Things are just that F

UCKED UP!

[Poll_Blind]

52. Your words are a familiar type of prophesy, and which sadly ring true to most Americans. nt

PB

[GiveMeFreedom]

40. Will NASA even be relevant in 75 to 100 years?

That is not to long from a technological time perspective. Kitty Hawk to landing on the moon was only 66 years. I have noticed a trend toward private enterprise now venturing into space, for profit. Space is our future or our salvation, both? I do not really know if am for it personally, the enterprising of space for profit, because it will bring the baggage that comes with it, war, politics, etc. Peace.

[delrem]

42. I wish the US would spend more on NASA and less on wars.

When I was younger I was totally enthralled by Neil Armstrong and Co's adventures on the moon and the whole idea of space exploration, along with Jacques Cousteau's exploration of the oceans, and Thor Heyerdahl's adventures on the Kon-Tiki. Something about exploring the outer limits of every endeavor struck me as being so obviously worth it, I never thought I'd have to argue in favor. I thought that bright light would forever shine, having a natural and innate advantage.

At the same time as this was going on were wars, Korea, Viet-Nam, and Darth-Vader-like dreams of militarizing space and turning the planet Earth into a closed prison operated by apparatchiks. I never believed that vision of a closed militaristic prison could ever prevail, that it could ever be that the light of freedom would have to scurry from darkness to darkness. I was young and able to forget human history as fast as I learned about it.

I remember when the Russian Sputnik was sent up and I was a child too young to know, and my family was at a lakeshore surrounded by all the other families, on holidays at night with a big fire roaring and everyone looking up at the clear sky, some claiming to see it - and I didn't know what "it" was, I thought it was a witch, maybe, flying between the stars. I didn't know what it was but I knew it was something hugely important to get everyone out there, all the adults, to put that hush in everyone's voices - something both scary and awesome.

I hated how it all got closed down by the cold war, by the closed minded thought of people who wanted to use all that explorative spirit, that courage and ingenuity, to build a gigantic cage with weapons pointed inward at the whole planet. A vision culminating in Reagan's "Star Wars" defense ideas, the whole paranoid shebang putting a lid on everything, Reagan's vision contradicting everything that John Kennedy had promised in his speech, September 12, 1962

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

[walkerbait41]

93. +1

[Blandocyte]

47. Must explore new worlds, seek out new civilizations

etc. It is our continuing mission as a species.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Not enough money for SS, but enough money for this.

Your tax dollars at work.

[Posteritatis]

66. What do you think NASA's budget is? (nt)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. More than what these people are receiving.

[Posteritatis]

71. Again, what do you think NASA's budget is? (nt)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. What? Is this a guessing game? Do you want to highlight any special knowledge that you have?

[Posteritatis]

84. I'm highlighting the ignorance people whining about NASA expenses have. (nt)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. So you raised a red herring? So what?

[LanternWaste]

92. I don't think that the elimination of NASA would end poverty

I don't think that the elimination of NASA would end poverty, nor do I think it would make a dent in poverty, nor do I think it would have any objective and measurable impact on poverty at all. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that lacking any sound sound analysis, your premise is (by its very definition) a red herring (ie., the argument provided by an individual (poverty) is not relevant to the issue being discussed (NASA)).


However, I certainly would reconsider my position were I were presented with actual supporting points and analysis rather than merely a premise unsupported by any propositions.

[Katashi_itto]

94. Elimination of NASA would actually increase poverty. With NASA in play, we get new devices,

new processes, new industries. More Jobs are created. Look up the ROI for NASA.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

95. Your problem is that you are arguing against a point that, no one other than you, made.

It is unnecessary for anyone who recognizes that money is being squandered on various pet projects to also argue (as I do not, and have never argued) that

"the elimination of NASA would end poverty."

I sincerely doubt that you've ever heard anyone in your entire life argue that.

That's a foolish argument. The only ones that I would expect to make such an argument, unless they are building strawmen, are the truly foolish and uninformed.

[Kolesar]

78. It's gravy for Boeing and the other aerospace contractors...eom

[Posteritatis]

85. So what's the number? Do you know it? How much do those contractors get from it? (nt)

[Kolesar]

77. Manned space flight is daff

It costs a fortune and does not accomplish what deep space probes and Earth-observing satellites do. It's gravy for the Pentagon contractors.

[Sunlei]

55. good news. wonder if spacex and other private companies will work with NASA on projects.

Some of those asteroids are rare earth materials. Solid gold? I remember reading all the surface gold on earth came from asteroid strikes.

Be cool too an asteroid in a stable orbit can be a platform for any kind of space industry.

[Heywood J]

80. Technically speaking, much of the surface of the earth came from asteroid strikes.

an asteroid in a stable orbit can be a platform for any kind of space industry.

We could call it "the moon".

[tridim]

79. An asteroid mission would be amazing to watch in HD. Thumbs up!