NASA, Other

Former astronaut says accessing space resources is essential to NASA’s future

The last few weeks have seen a variety of views about the future of NASA, in particular its human spaceflight programs. There is little consensus in these opinions, beyond a belief that the agency’s current direction, in particular the goal laid out by President Obama of a human mission to a near Earth asteroid by 2025, is somehow unsatisfactory. That was a particular point of emphasis in the National Research Council’s recent report on NASA’s strategic direction. “Despite isolated pockets of support for a human asteroid mission, the committee did not detect broad support for an asteroid mission inside NASA, in the nation as a whole, or from the international community,” the report stated.

Another voice joining this chorus also sees issues with NASA’s asteroid mission plans, but has a different alternative in mind. “I’m excited about that because I’m a planetary scientist who loves asteroids,” said former astronaut Tom Jones of those current plans during a talk on Monday at the National Air and Space Museum, part of an ongoing series called the Space Policy and History Forum. He said, though, that those current plans appeared to be just a “default” position by the administration when it rejected previous plans for a human return to the Moon. “Today, in 2012, we’re not making very rapid progress to get people to an asteroid. The Space Launch System and Orion are not maturing rapidly enough to start missions to asteroids in 2025. So, maybe, five years after that we’ll do the first one.”

A key issue he identified for any human missions beyond Earth, be it Moon, Mars, or asteroids, is funding. “With a flat budget I don’t see how NASA pulls together even these scrabbled-together resources to do this over the next ten years,” he said, referring to proposals to develop an outpost at the Earth-Moon L2 point, perhaps using repurposed space station components. “There’s going to have to be some kind of promise of a return on investment, some kind of cash to be made for the country, increasing national wealth, from operating from beyond low Earth orbit.”

Jones, who emphasized that he was speaking only for himself, offered his own “modest proposal” for an alternative approach that combined elements of lunar and asteroid mission. “I think what we ought to do is to take these next ten years and reorient NASA to early access to space resources, with NASA as the instrument that then demonstrates commercial potential via lunar robotic and near Earth asteroid sampling,” he said.

A key difference between his proposal and the current NASA mission is that rather than send humans out to a near Earth asteroid, NASA would instead send the asteroid to astronauts in cislunar space. He cited a study by the Keck Institute of Space Studies on the feasibility of an “asteroid retrieval” mission that showed how a robotic mission could capture a 500-ton asteroid and move it into high lunar orbit. Once in lunar orbit, astronauts could then easily visit it to both study it and perhaps even work to extract resources, notably water ice and other volatiles, that would have value for other space activities.

“Why would we want to bring a rock back towards our planet?” he asked. “It’s a great destination for humans to use their talents and skills.” Such a mission would have a variety of roles, from offering a stepping stone for later human exploration missions to testing techniques for planetary defense. “It’s the only way humans are going to get to an asteroid by the mid-2020s.”

That mission would be part of a broader architecture that includes demonstrations of deep space exploration systems and material processing technologies on the ISS, robotic landers and rovers on the Moon (including commercial efforts being developed as part of the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition), and possibly lunar sample return missions, where robotic landers place samples in orbit for return to Earth on crewed Orion missions.

A key element of this approach, he said, would be the commercial exploitation of lunar and asteroid resources. A typical 500-ton asteroid, he noted, would have about 200 tons of water ice and other volatiles. “NASA guarantees that they’ll purchase tons of propellant from a provider from this object or others that are recovered,” he said. “You get commercial delivery of that water to lower the cost of deep space operations for people and robots.” That would eventually lead, he said, “to an economic expansion into cislunar space, where raw materials and solar energy are available, people are involved, commercial companies are involved, getting their own material by duplicating that initial demo that NASA did.”

Asked to summarize his concept in an elevator pitch, Jones offered a one-sentence explanation: “Make money in space and protect the planet at the same time.”

Would such an approach, though, put NASA in competition with companies like Planetary Resources (for whom Jones is an advisor) that are interested in extracting asteroid resources on their own? “I applaud that kind of innovation and spirit,” Jones said. “The danger to them is that they lose their shirts” if they fail. “NASA risks becoming irrelevant if they don’t get into this realm.”

63 comments to Former astronaut says accessing space resources is essential to NASA’s future

  • Brett

    That sounds like a fantastic idea. We know how to get to lunar orbit, and not having to land on the Moon saves a ton of complexity on mission design. Moreover, you could sell the asteroid examination and retrieval mission on economic terms – to some extent. You would need to either bring back a piece of very valuable rock (like a rock fragment heavily embedded with one or more of the Platinum Group Metals), or demonstrate the technology for in-space fuel production and transfer.

    If you wanted to, you could actually get Planetary Resources on board with the final asteroid retrieval process. I”m not entirely sure how you would set up the contract, though – it might be better to get them in as much of it as possible. That way, they can lobby on the basis of jobs and high technology if Congress ever threatens to cancel the subsidy/funding.

    • I find it ludicrous, how the Flexible Path people are SO phobic to having to deal with both planetary dust AND performing an actual landing upon another world, flying a crewed vehicle downward. What’s so frightening about surface operations?! Dealing with lunar landers anew, will give us tremendous experience with facing the dust managements issues. Plus electrical power and life-support issues. Whether the lunar surface stay is for a fortnight or for four months. Remember the unexpected difficulties that the last three Apollo missions faced with driving a manned rover vehicle? These are spaceflight experiences that are sorely needed, if humanity is ever going to be a multi-planet species, in the long run.

  • vulture4

    Sounds like the helium-3 saga to me. The key thing to remember is that without vast reductions in cost it would not be economical to return even platinum-rich ore from an asteroid. Getting into LEO more efficiently remains essential. As to actual asteroid recovery, with current technology it could be accomplished much less expensively by unmanned systems, in fact small amounts of asteroidal material have already been returned by Hyabusa. Unmanned systems could do the job less expensively and more safety, taking the long periods required for nuclear-electric propulsion. We need RLVs and research in AI, not huge, dumb rockets.

    • Brett

      That’s probably true. Even with the 1 1/2 light-second lag, you could still control the robots around the orbiting asteroid with near real-time, assuming you put up some decent relay satellites.

      The “Helium-3″ argument always struck me as incredibly speculative – far more so than just using the ice and solar power to make rocket fuel. Extracting a fuel for a power supply that we haven’t even gotten to sustained ignition-and-burn with an easier reaction, and which is unlikely to be so good as to justify spending money on it compared to alternative earth-based power sources.

      • vulture4

        That wasn’t what made it fantasy. it was the fact that the supporters of the lunar mining plan hadn’t even bothered to check on whether 3He was limited in supply on Earth. It isn’t. It can be easily synthesized simply by letting tritium decay. Until demand increased recently it sold for about $100/liter.

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4
    December 16, 2012 at 1:44 pm · Reply

    Sounds like the helium-3 saga to me”

    yeah it is a solution chasing a problem. With today’s NASA incapable of doing anything on budget other then planning lunch every day; it strikes me that the notion of having a big project for NASA to do seems a bit optimistic…and then if we got past that its “why would we do this?”

    We have no experience extracting water from asteroids so we would have to spend billions developing the capability …and then once we had the capability we would have to spend billions more coming up with something to use that capability.

    Lets try something modest like sending an inflatable from Bigelow to ISS and see if we can pull that off for something approaching budget and time. I am not optimistic. RGO

    • Brett

      I don’t blame NASA entirely for that (although they are responsible for the management issues). Projects at the technological edge often tend to have unpredictable costs, and NASA’s issues with that are even worse because of all the meddling they face with their funding allocation.

      • Robert G. Oler

        But on Cx/SLS/Orion they have spent BILLIONS and there is nothing to show for it even approaching the cost…You have to wonder why on the burn rate of say Orion they were using a flight vehicle for an engineering pressure test?

        they are spending 1.5 or so billion a YEAR on Orion…where is it all going? Congress is not forcing that. RGO

  • JimNobles

    First, I’m not convinced that bringing an asteroid large enough to be useful into the Earth-Moon system and attempting to park it is such a brilliant idea. A Sun-Earth Lagrange point maybe.

    Second, I’d like to have an idea of which particular rock they have in mind, why they think it may be a good candidate, and what hardware and mission profile they intend to use to do the job.

    This whole thing seems a bit premature to me.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Tom Jones, whom Jeff neglected to mention is a Fox New analyst, has an interesting idea, similar to what is being proposed by Planetary Resources. Perhaps NASA could team up with that company and do it on a commercial basis, for a share of the profits.

    • Robert G. Oler

      Mark R. Whittington
      December 16, 2012 at 2:39 pm · Reply

      Tom Jones, whom Jeff neglected to mention is a Fox New analyst, has an interesting idea, similar to what is being proposed by Planetary Resources. Perhaps NASA could team up with that company and do it on a commercial basis, for a share of the profits.>>

      are there two of you or do you have a Skippy/Poppy act?

      How would this be any different then what is happening with commercial crew/cargo?

      RGO

    • Actually, Jones is a consultant to Planetary Resources, Inc. so it’s to be expected he would favor their idea of bringing an asteroid to the Moon.

      Bob Clark

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Need I also point out that if one puts the rock at one of the Earth/Moon Lagrange points it becomes the perfect location for that deep space station NASA is pushing, with the added benefit that resources like water and volatiles will already be there.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington
    December 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm · Reply

    Need I also point out that if one puts the rock at one of the Earth/Moon Lagrange points it becomes the perfect location for that deep space station NASA is pushing>

    LOL the largest rock that they think can be recovered by the system the report is pushing is 7 meters.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=meters+to+feet+conversion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    will help you with the conversion.

    LOL RGO

      • Brett

        I’m not seeing the problem there, either. 500 tons is still quite a bit of rock, especially if a decent chunk of that is either volatiles or valuable metals.

      • Robert G. Oler

        I’ll mention a few

        1. the “acreage” available is limited to anchor things to the surface.

        2. the thing is small but massive SO it is not going to be trivial to either keep the “rock” in some orientation reference the sun/Earth and or Moon (ie for power or comm) indeed the movment left to its own devices would be choatic (which it probably is NOW) and

        3. Keeping it at the EML would not be trivial either

        4. We are suppose to be mining it..that would most likely result in a permanent “cloud” of debris coorbiting in the EML halo

        5 if we are mining it then well eventually there is less of it…

        6 I cannot see a single advantage to having a dedicated EML station attached to this rock…what do you think that they are?

        Robert G. Oler

  • Brett

    You could use the overall asteroid retrieval mission objective to get funding to Planetary Resources (or someone else) to do a demonstration project for making fuel out of ice and transferring it to another spacecraft while in orbit. That might actually be more secure in terms of funding than having NASA do it, since Planetary Resources could always lobby with “Why are you trying to cut these high-tech, high-paying jobs/America’s high technology with budget cuts?” when the inevitable attempts at cutting the budget come. It seems to be working for SpaceX’s subsidy.

    Even if the overall objective gets gutted before we send out a robotic spacecraft to push the asteroid in question into lunar orbit, just having the above as proven technology would be valuable.

  • I attended a similar presentation by Dr. Jones earlier this year when he was here at the Cape.

    Regular readers of mine know that I constantly gripe about how Congress only supports space to the point that it protects jobs and contractors in their states and districts.

    My opinion is that we have to free NASA from Congress and encourage the growth of the private sector. If we look at the history of global exporation, it was always driven out of economic motivation, not exploration for altruistic motives.

    I think Dr. Jones’ proposal offers a way to meld the two together.

    Congress really doesn’t care what NASA does, so long as it protects the sclerotic space-industrial complex. Dr. Jones has noted that one modest-sized asteroid probably has more platinum-based minerals than exist here on Earth.

    Combine the two. NASA is given something to do with the SLS, so the space-industrial complex is satisfied. We exploit our robotic technology, which no other nation has, to use it to capture an asteroid and bring it to LEO. Once it’s here, we can send astronauts up to examine it and prepare the way for asteroid miners (if required, although eventually it could be robotic mining).

    The U.S. will have an entirely new space-based economy no other nation on Planet Earth could possibly have. Only the U.S. is capable of doing it.

    Now there will be some who scream “Solyndra” as a shibboleth without even understanding what that means. So what. Create a commercial asteroid mining competition, just like with commercial cargo and crew, both of which have proven to be very successful programs. Americans love a good competition.

    One would think the White House would be all over this too.

    The only problem I see has to do with budget. Congress won’t want to give NASA more money, so those with special interests in the other divisions of NASA will squawk because they don’t want their budgets reduced. Their Senators and Representatives will be out to protect their parochial interests. Perhaps some of that can be avoided by dividing up the NASA-side of the program among the various space centers.

    It’s not a perfect solution, but it seems to be one that best satisfies all interests.

    By the way, his web site is:

    http://home.comcast.net/~skywalking/

    • Coastal Ron

      Stephen C. Smith wrote:

      NASA is given something to do with the SLS, so the space-industrial complex is satisfied.

      I don’t see where the money to operate the SLS and build the SLS-sized payloads is supposed to come from. NASA currently doesn’t get enough budget to do that, so unless this new plan includes a net increase in money, the SLS is still too expensive.

      But let’s not forget the basic principle that the SLS has to fulfill – it has to satisfy a sustained level of demand. So far there is ZERO, although there are plenty of unfunded dreams.

      The venture you outline (resource mining) is going to be dependent on keeping costs as low as possible, and the SLS does nothing to help that. For instance, in the real world, the $30B development cost would have to be recouped over the life of the product, which likely means tacking on $1B per flight, and that would make each SLS flight cost between $2.5-3.5B. The Falcon Heavy could lift the same mass to LEO for $384M, making the SLS at least 6X more expensive. No one could make a business plan that hopes their competitors won’t use the far less expensive Falcon Heavy, and the difference is significant money.

      While it seems like an elegant solution, it’s highly unlikely to happen. I’m not against resource mining in space, but even the demand for that is too far unknown to make any big bets, especially with public money.

  • Guest

    Oler’s and Brett’s statements, that “NASA is incapable of doing anything” and that NASA is “responsible for the management issues”, are really the critical points for the foreseeable future. So far, what is real is that in Constellation,NASA could not figure out what it needed to do, and in Orion, which has continued over billions of dollars and now nearing a decade, essentially nothing has been designed or developed after a huge expenditure.

    More than anything else, NASA has to show it has some capability to manage the development of a manned spacecraft. The last decade has not inspired any level of confidence. All this discussion of asteroid mining mission is fanciful until NASA demonstrates it still has some kind of a real capability.

  • Water on the asteroids (about 100 tons from a 500-ton NEA) is in the form of water bound up in clays, not ice. Mild solar heating in a processor will drive it out. Read the KISS report on NEO capture for solutions to safety and technology challenges. It’s doable with robots as described.

    Such a NASA demo will lower risk for commercial processing…from Moon or NEAs. Unless we use local energy and materials to make propellant and lower costs, space exploration will remain unaffordable beyond infrequent robotic missions. Better to enrich the nations who show the way, while learning how to protect Earth from rogue NEAs. Both missions sell well with the taxpayer.

  • Neil Shipley

    Based on NASA’s performance of the last few decades and most recently Cx, JWST, MPCV, one would be hard put to believe that they could pull of any large program to schedule or cost budget. As some have already stated, it’s a solution looking to solve an existing problem. What to do with the bloated SLS and MPCV programs.
    There is no rationale for these to exist other than as jobs programs. Therefore, should sequestration take place, all NASA will do is cut pretty much uniformly across these plus there other programs. And you it’s simply not possible to successfully deliver a program such as these with flat and declining budgets.
    Commercial is the only hope for any worthwhile hsf activity leo and beo.

    Apologies for off-topic.
    My sincere condolences to everyone feeling the effects of the recent shooting tragedy. I’ve seen these before but somehow this one affected me more. Our local state-wide paper had pictures of the victims taking the full front cover. Shocking but unfortunately not unexpected. Again, an example of vested interests defying logic. And now a test of O’Bama’s leadership. Will he have the balls to actually fight this one? Tears are all very well but at the end of the day, only action counts. For the sake of the victims, I hope that sense prevails and such weapons are removed from the public domain.

    • Robert G. Oler

      I feel exactly the way you do on the entire post

      the good news is that the right wing pestalance of no facts, lies and exaggerations is ending. Sadly not soon enough

      Nice post RGO

  • red

    “He said, though, that those current plans appeared to be just a “default” position by the administration when it rejected previous plans for a human return to the Moon.”

    The Flexible Path of starting with cislunar space missions, then going to near-Earth asteroids as first rocky-world destinations, followed by Mars orbit and then Mars, with the possibility of lunar surface missions along the way, isn’t a “default” position. It was emphasized by the the Planetary Society’s “Beyond the Moon: A New Roadmap for Human Space Exploration” and the Augustine Committee as a way to accomplish actual missions before decades had elapsed, which is what would have happened with the Constellation plan based on a NASA government HLV and Orion. But guess what … Congress forced NASA to build the government-style HLV and Orion, and sadly the Administration eventually went along with it in its full train-wreck glory. As a result, the 2025 mission is not going to happen. The SLS and Orion don’t leave funding for actual missions, even Flexible Path ones (except possibly a lunar flyby stunt with no real content).

    “Today, in 2012, we’re not making very rapid progress to get people to an asteroid. The Space Launch System and Orion are not maturing rapidly enough to start missions to asteroids in 2025. So, maybe, five years after that we’ll do the first one.”

    Surprise, surprise. Try 2040 or later, if SLS/Orion aren’t cancelled.

    “With a flat budget I don’t see how NASA pulls together even these scrabbled-together resources to do this over the next ten years.”

    It won’t. In 2010, the Obama Administration proposed increasing the NASA budget – not the ambitious Augustine $3B ramp-up, but a sizeable increase nonetheless. Budget battles with the House resulted in a budget decrease. Does anyone think it’s going to increase now? It’s nonsense to think it will, just as it was in 2010, so we should make a NASA plan that doesn’t involve some fantasy sustained multi-billion dollar NASA budget increase to make HLV/Orion and associated payloads, whether deep space habs, landers, gateway stations, or observatories to service, affordable.

    Heavy ISS use, technology development and demonstration for use of asteroid and lunar resources, commercial participation, and robotic precursor missions were all strongly supported in the Administration’s FY2011 budget. The Planetary Resources style scenario presented is just a twist on that theme to make the earlier and more affordable Flexible Path destinations more productive. It’s a promising idea, but I want to emphasize that it will not work with SLS/Orion in the budget. We know that, because when the Administration “compromised” with the space-state Congressional interests to keep HLV and Orion money flowing to the right places, budgets for heavy ISS use, technology development and in-space demonstrations, and robotic precursor missions went away. Only a stub of new commercial participation, the commercial crew program, remains.

    The reason I bring this up is that Tom Jones wrote against the Administration proposal to dramatically increase space technology development funding, increase ISS use and capabilities, launch a fleet of robotic precursor missions, partner heavily with commercial space, and demonstrate key technologies like ISRU (etc) in space. He wanted the government HLV and Orion.

    http://skywalking1.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-presidents-take-on-nasas-future-mission-to-nowhere/

    So … it’s a bit odd for him to complain about lack of progress, or to advocate for robotic precursors, heavy ISS use and commercial participation, ISRU demonstrations, etc, when he opposed those very things an advocated for the things that prevent them (i.e. SLS/Orion).

  • red

    Just for comparison, Osiris-Rex is a New Frontiers (i.e. ~$1B class) mission to return a 60-gram sample:

    http://osiris-rex.lpl.arizona.edu/

    In this case, it’s to Earth’s surface rather than lunar orbit, but I imagine returning a 500 ton asteroid and then working with it will still be a budgetary challenge.

    • Robert G. Oler

      LOL yeah

      “Just for comparison, Osiris-Rex is a New Frontiers (i.e. ~$1B class) mission to return a 60-gram sample:”

      The “capture” phase seems to me particularly “science fictionish”. the likely hood of this working on a “first time” effort seems remote. there are plenty of 7 meter space debris objects that have high rates on them.l.. I suspect we would have to try one of those first.

      This is a non starter its the latest use for the space industrial complex with an open ended budget. RGO

  • Bill L

    The program really is in a crisis and yet no one wants to admit it. The human space budget has not gone down much if at all. We stopped building Shuttle years ago and stopped operating it more than a year ago. We laid off 15000 people. That saved $3-4 billion per year. ISS continues to operate with an American aboard (thanks to our traditional friends, the Russians), yet the slowness of the NASA management and the CASIS start-up means we have no effective plans for its use for 3-5 years. The NASA managers are basically undistinguished. None from Bolden on down has ever distinguished themselves by accomplishing anything of note. They never successfully designed anything. They never built anything. They had an opportunity to show what they could do with Constellation, Orion and Ares, to turn that around but those ideas are as far from flying today as they were at the outset in 2004. These people have now demonstrated their incompetence and failure. The few competent people left NASA. Manned harvesting of asteroids??? by NASA??? Come on folks. Maybe in some other generation.

  • Brian M

    “The human space budget has not gone down much if at all…We laid off 15000 people. That saved $3-4 billion per year.”

    I’d like to know where all that money is going? Nothing seems to have replaced what we’ve lost. If the money is about the same then we should not have lost a lot of people.

  • amightywind

    The energetics of reaching a small asteroid on a Plymouth Rock type mission profile are challenging enough for the previous Constellation architecture, let alone Constellation-Lite (SLS). The launch opportunities for such missions are years apart. The notion of bringing such a rock home is silly talk. These people are space professionals?

  • Coastal Ron

    Bill L wrote:

    The human space budget has not gone down much if at all.

    If you look at the NASA budget categories, there is no “human space” line item. The two budget categories that include humans in space are “Exploration” and “Space Operations”.

    We stopped building Shuttle years ago and stopped operating it more than a year ago. We laid off 15000 people. That saved $3-4 billion per year.

    You are forgetting the SLS and Orion/MPCV programs, which took over the Constellation spending levels when it was cancelled, and Constellation assumed it was taking over the budget of the Shuttle when it ended. All you have to do is look at the NASA budgets over time to see where the money is going. There is no mystery here.

    ISS continues to operate with an American aboard (thanks to our traditional friends, the Russians), yet the slowness of the NASA management and the CASIS start-up means we have no effective plans for its use for 3-5 years.

    The ISS has been producing science results for years. CASIS was set up to accelerate that, and it is, so you are not correct on this.

    The NASA managers are basically undistinguished. None from Bolden on down has ever distinguished themselves by accomplishing anything of note. They never successfully designed anything. They never built anything.

    The role of NASA Administrator is not to be NASA’s Chief Designer, it is to be it’s chief manager. You have the wrong impression. And unfortunately some do take on the designer role, like Michael Griffin did with the Constellation architecture – what a mess.

  • common sense

    I don’t know what’s wrong with all those people. Here we are almost 9 years after CEV was announced more or less with well nothing to show. NOTHING. 10s of billions wasted.

    So here is a thought. Let’s do something really hard. We cannot build a darn rocket and a capsule based on existing technologies but we’ll set up a mission to retrieve an asteroid and mine it somehow. And all that in a middle of a recession and possible huge cuts to NASA.

    What’s wrong with these people???? WHAT IS WRONG?

    Any thought?

    • Coastal Ron

      common sense wrote:

      What’s wrong with these people???? WHAT IS WRONG?

      Any thought?

      They are apparently still disconnected from reality.

      NASA is funded today for a number of reasons, chiefly (as I see it) for doing real science, and because of a general sense that funding NASA somehow creates new technologies that keep the U.S. as a technology leader in the world. However NASA is bloated, and it is used as a funding stream for politicians in certain states.

      I think the public in general supports science, and it supports technology development if they see it connected to something that they will eventually depend upon. But neither of those is what is being proposed WRT this asteroid plan, and there is no direct connection for the public to see that benefits them with this plan.

      For instance, mining minerals in space only replaces minerals mined here on Earth. Why is that necessary? Other than messing around with commodity prices, what does the public gain? For every proposed “solution” (which is what this plan purports to be) there has to be an acknowledged problem.

      Then, if there truly is an acknowledged problem that this asteroid plan solves, the question has to be asked “Why NASA?” NASA has no expertise in mineral extraction, and NASA really doesn’t have any special knowledge about the transportation systems that will be needed to make this whole plan work.

      Again, why NASA?

      I think the U.S. would get a better ROI if they created a multi-billion dollar X-Prize for doing this. In fact they could juice up the prize for the Google Lunar X-Prize to get things going faster, and progressively increase the level of difficulty until they have developed a new industry that is ready & tested for going after the big goal of wrangling an asteroid. Doing it in a single step is too big, and needlessly wasteful.

      But I still don’t see the need for the U.S. Government to get involved with what really boils down to a private sector question – where to extract mineral from. If they think the next place to go is an asteroid, then they can fund it themselves, and get help from NASA as needed (which is part of it’s charter).

      • common sense

        “They are apparently still disconnected from reality.”

        Funny you say that because in the real world when a traded company shows even a hint that they will not deliver a product because some unexpected thunderstorm lightning hit the power lines to the plant building the plastic case of their bag that may be or not sold with said product then their shares drop like crazy sometimes resulting in major layoffs. Then if the company is lucky they restructure everything especially at the head if it is where the problem lies as seen by the shareholders. Or the company is written off.

        Here we are with a near bankrupt agency, unable to deliver a product for whatever reason now for many years. The solution by some of their execs or former execs is to try something that is even more difficult than what they were trying to do in the first place. Nobody gets restructured. Nobody takes responsibility. Nobody tries to stop the darn runaway train. Instead they fuel it.

        So eventually there will be a market correction of sort and it will hurt, sequestration or not. Someone somehow will need some extra dollars for one of their pet projects somewhere in Alaska. And that someone will try to raid the NASA budget and s/he will create a trend. And no one will be able to protect the agency since they have nothing to show for it.

        Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But I think it no longer is a question of “if” but rather of “when” it will happen now.

        What an absurd waste of talent and resources!

        To use one of our most famous posters line here: tick-tock tick-tock.

        • Coastal Ron

          common sense wrote:

          Here we are with a near bankrupt agency…

          Government agencies like NASA can’t go bankrupt, as they are pure spending. However the purpose NASA serves can go away, or be subsumed by other parts of the government or private industry.

          …unable to deliver a product for whatever reason now for many years.

          Ask the public what NASA has been doing lately, and those that have paid attention will point to Curiosity on Mars, or the first SpaceX CRS mission to the ISS – successes both. The public doesn’t necessarily see what failures NASA has, that has to be the job of the press and our government representatives.

          Sooner or later the SLS “situation” will come to the forefront, and that day of reckoning has got to be coming soon, if not because the program is growing a slipping, but also because Congress has to start authorizing the funding of missions that will use it.

          The solution by some of their execs or former execs is to try something that is even more difficult than what they were trying to do in the first place.

          Tom Jones doesn’t merit such a lofty description. He was an astronaut, and not part of management.

          So eventually there will be a market correction of sort and it will hurt, sequestration or not.

          Maybe. It depends if a tipping point is reached with regard to NASA, or the perception that NASA needs a major restructuring. Nothing will likely happen until well after this sequestration situation is concluded. We don’t yet know what Obama’s priorities will be in his second term, and if he brings in a new NASA Administrator, that could the goal they are given – restructure NASA for the 21st century.

          That would be my hope.

    • Great observation! We are indeed almost ten years after both Project Constellation was supposedly started AND the commencement of one of its major elements: the CEV craft, known later as the Orion craft. Yes, all this was supposed to involve already established technology. Build a vehicle similar to the old Apollo Command & Service module, and expand & improve upon it. THAT was all there should’ve been to it! A combined spacecraft with which to do (1) an earth-orbit rendezvous with the rest of a trans-lunar craft, (2) serve as the main lunar orbiting craft, either manned or unmanned, for the length of a lunar landing stay, (3) then serve as the prime earth-return vehicle for the crew. What’s so hard about all this?! The other elements: the EDS, the new lunar module, & the Ares heavy-lift rocket, were all similar in scope; they all just should’ve been updates & expansion-in-capabilities of spacecraft schemes that have all been firmly established as doable, in the past. What’s wrong with NASA & the entire space program indeed?!! If we can’t re-create Apollo-type spacecraft, forty years after the fact, then maybe we all should just quit the business!

      • Coastal Ron

        Chris Castro lamented:

        What’s so hard about all this?!

        Chris, as you have been told many times before, we do know how to go to the Moon, but instead of having Apollo’s massive budget (up to 4% of the Federal Budget), we have the smallest NASA budget since 1959 to work with.

        Honestly, I’m not sure how much more simple I can make that. You do understand the concept of money?

        What’s wrong with NASA & the entire space program indeed?!!

        NASA doesn’t decide where NASA goes, Congress does. Yet another fact that you choose to ignore. Until your elected representatives decide that spending $100B is worth going back to the Moon, it ain’t going to happen.

        In fact I would place the blame for Congress not wanting to pay for a return to the Moon directly at YOUR FEET. With all your supposed passion, you have been unsuccessful in convincing Congress there is a need to spend $100B to go back to the Moon.

        It’s your fault.

      • common sense

        “What’s wrong with NASA & the entire space program indeed?!! If we can’t re-create Apollo-type spacecraft, forty years after the fact, then maybe we all should just quit the business!”

        Well well.

        There may be hope after all.

  • common sense

    “Government agencies like NASA can’t go bankrupt, ”

    Maybe not literally but if you transpose their situation to the private sector that is exactly what they would be. Bankrupt.

    “Tom Jones doesn’t merit such a lofty description. He was an astronaut, and not part of management.”

    You would be surprised how influential an astronaut might be… Just check who is heading NASA, NASA SMD, etc…

    • Coastal Ron

      common sense wrote:

      You would be surprised how influential an astronaut might be…

      Yes, but not EVERY astronaut. Just like not every Senator is capable of being elected President, or every MBA graduate being capable of being a big company CEO.

      It’s the rare person that can reach high levels of government service without being politically savvy to some degree, and it’s even harder to be nominated to be in charge of one of the U.S. Government agencies or departments. The resume of Tom Jones doesn’t seem very remarkable by itself, and doesn’t impress me as anyone “special” enough to lead NASA, or at least provide direction for it.

  • common sense

    “The resume of Tom Jones doesn’t seem very remarkable by itself, and doesn’t impress me as anyone “special” enough to lead NASA, or at least provide direction for it.”

    Granted but beware the resume. It does not mean as much as the personal connection you have. Merit is nice but sadly way overrated in my view. Now I am not trying to make Tom Jones the primary responsible in that mess. He is just one of many. But considering is experience you would expect more. You would expect someone who cares about *the* program to see how ludicrous is idea without any budgetary support is. What is his interest and those of like minded? Do they really truly believe that NASA will go this route??? REALLY? How about trying to think rather than yet another mission of a way to fix the problem that NASA hasn’t delivered any HSF program for 40 years, save for ISS and at what cost? I think that it is because the answer is too frightful to formulate. And so just like the ostrich and the sand those people just REFUSE to face the music. After all why would they care? The potential human theater of the coming weeks is just so pathetic compared with the loss of their wildest SciFi dreams. Because they do those things because they truly know what needs to be done. Well they don’t. They have no clue. So they mumble some pseudo solution instead.

    In the movie As Good as it Gets – I know great reference – I love the line by Nicholson “I am drowning here and you are describing the water!”. Actually the whole thing nicely applies.

    “Look, you… I’m very intelligent, if you’re gonna give me hope you gotta do better than your doing. I mean, if you can’t be at least mildly interesting then shut the hell up! I mean, I’m drowning here, and you’re describing the water!”

    • Robert G. Oler

      In the movie As Good as it Gets – I know great reference – I love the line by Nicholson “I am drowning here and you are describing the water!”. Actually the whole thing nicely applies.

      “Look, you… I’m very intelligent, if you’re gonna give me hope you gotta do better than your doing. I mean, if you can’t be at least mildly interesting then shut the hell up! I mean, I’m drowning here, and you’re describing the water!”

      the one constant since the end of Apollo is some grand overarching multi hundred billion dollar scheme to “open up” space that government is going to do (in some guise) and then wow its all going to happen.

      First it was the shuttle. NASA was going to develop (against all odds) a reusable vehicle that was going to be a sort of airliner and then “wow” things would really start going.

      OK 7 astronauts dead later we turn to the station…wow NASA is going to build for 8 billion dollars a massive multi discipline thing in space that is going to just revolutionize how humans use space.

      It took 100-200 billion, the thing is about a quarter of what it was suppose to be and we barely get 30 hours of science/whatever a week.

      enter Cx. After 7 more astronauts go away we move to Apollo on Steroids. Wow we are going back to the Moon, cathedrels in space….15 billion dollars later we have well nothing but a stupid suborbital flight that alone cost almost a billion…so we go to

      SLS/Orion…wow what have they spent on this since Cx…9-12 billion dollars. A flight test article which has cracks in the pressure vessel, a rocket that is all paper…

      Have we forgotten the Mickey Mouse magic words “Miska Mouska Mickey Mouse”?

      and now some clown wants money to go grab a space rock and bring it in vicinity of the Earth? Does he really think this is possible?

      Comeon. NASA doesnt need “the next big thing” it needs to figure out how to do things semi on schedule and on budget AND how to make those things useful to the rest of the country.

      Everytime I hear these goofy things now I am reminded of the speech during the ISF fiasco by Randy Brinkley who gave a “this is where we will be after 5 years of the space station”…aside from having invented a cure for almost every ill known to man and invented this or that magic material…Brinkley was convincedthat the cost issues of the station were behind it.

      Goofy RGO

      • I have nothing but respect for your insight usually Robert and I agree with most of your comments, but don’t discount asteroid capture and/or manipulation as so much tinfoil.

        It was considered a very serious military option in the 1960s and Carl Sagan was hired as a consultant to research it: http://io9.com/5968239/what-exactly-was-carl-sagan-working-on-with-the-us-military

        I’m surprised the military aspect of asteroid manipulation isn’t discussed in this forum. It’s the 14,000 pound elephant in the room!

        • Robert G. Oler

          Thanks for the kind words

          I am quite certain that NEO rock utilization will be something for the future; what I am constantly amazed at is how the folks who are more wrapped up in big government space achievements always somehow think we can “force” an event instead of starting a natural evolution process to get to “that”

          Instead of massive “space spectaculars” with which afterwards we have no clue what to do with we should try modest steps that enable private enterprise to evolve capabilities in some fashion that actually can accomplish things.

          An example. The ISF…I “dont know” where we would be with ISF had we gone there instead of the space station; but we couldnt be worse off. We spent 100-200 billion on the space station and despite the best efforts of people like Justin Kugler we have no clue how to use it…for the money it took to build it we have 200 billion or so down the septic system we are spending 2-3 billion a year on just maintaning it…and the only real “evolution” money is commercial cargo crew…now that might be enough…but If we had done ISF we might have had some evolution path that eventually private industry would start to drive.

          We are sort of stuck with a NASA that shuns private enterprise as much as possible, creates some ediface that only they can afford to use (actually we are even out of that phase, they cant finish anything for a realistic price these days0 private enterprise cant get involved with it and then “wow there is no use for space so we have to start another massive program”

          It isnt that we spend to little in space; it is that we spend to much of it maintaining a government bureacracy that only serves itself…and then we have right wingers like Whittington defend it RGO

          • Coastal Ron

            Robert G. Oler wrote:

            We spent 100-200 billion on the space station and despite the best efforts of people like Justin Kugler we have no clue how to use it…

            I know you’re trying to make a point, but this statement is just plain wrong.

            You could make the argument that the ISS isn’t worth the money that we invested, that we aren’t using it to it’s fullest extent, or that the amount of science and experience we are getting out of operating the ISS isn’t important. Those are debatable subjects.

            But there is no doubt that we know how to use the ISS.

            • Robert G. Oler

              But there is no doubt that we know how to use the ISS.”

              we really dont

              AT best about 30-35 hours of something other then keeping the station going gets done a week and the average is more like 20 hours…thats 1/2 to 3/4 of a “person week” and it is indicative in large measure of the fact that the agency has no clue how to use the station.

              Coupled with that is an inability on NASA’s part to put something on the station that is remotely representative of any real ie non NASA science.

              It is not that the station cost to much, those cost are done and lamenting over them is mostly a fools errand…but the “what do we do now Wally” questions need to be asked…and what we are doing now is not worth tits on a boar. RGO

        • Coastal Ron

          dad2059 wrote:

          I’m surprised the military aspect of asteroid manipulation isn’t discussed in this forum. It’s the 14,000 pound elephant in the room!

          At a time when we’re trying to reduce the number of planet-killing nuclear weapons, spending money to create a NEW way to kill the Earth (potentially as an unintended consequence) doesn’t make a lot of sense, now does it?

          • Don’t get me wrong Mr. Ron, I don’t support such an idea, what I’m saying is that don’t be surprised if the DoD partially pays for an Orion asteroid mission or purchases the tech from Planetary Resources.

            But my theory is that a possible backroom deal was made with other nations not to develop this technology is for the very reason you mentioned, we don’t need more weapons when we’re trying to eliminate nuclear warheads.

            And asteroid moving technology would surely supercede nuclear arms in my view.

            • Coastal Ron

              dad2059 wrote:

              what I’m saying is that don’t be surprised if the DoD partially pays for an Orion asteroid mission or purchases the tech from Planetary Resources.

              I would be surprised, since there are far less expense ways to kill people or intimidate misbehaving countries.

              But my theory is that a possible backroom deal was made with other nations not to develop this technology is for the very reason you mentioned…

              I’m not much into conspiracies myself, and considering that everyone in the world could see that it was going to take the U.S. at least $100B and 20 years to return to the Moon, I’d say no backroom deals were necessary for everyone to see that trying such an effort at this point would likely bankrupt anyone that tries.

              And asteroid moving technology would surely supercede nuclear arms in my view.

              That’s like saying hippos supercede rhinos…

              • I’m not much into conspiracies myself, and considering that everyone in the world could see that it was going to take the U.S. at least $100B and 20 years to return to the Moon, I’d say no backroom deals were necessary for everyone to see that trying such an effort at this point would likely bankrupt anyone that tries.

                Chump change to the Pentagon. Remember the missing $2 Trillion big ones Rumsfeld was looking for in 2001? I’m sure the amount has accumulated a bit since then.

                Also a well placed gravity probe or solar sail on a small NEO to put into an intercept orbit is cheaper than mass producing nukes. At least for the Pentagon.

                That’s like saying hippos supersede rhinos…

                No, more like Abrams tanks superseding hippos, rhinos and elephants.

                And backdoor international “gentleman’s agreements” are a time honored strategy, not tinfoil conspiracy.

              • Coastal Ron

                dad2059 speculated:

                Chump change to the Pentagon. Remember the missing $2 Trillion big ones Rumsfeld was looking for in 2001?

                Oh, I forgot – all unexplained things are conspiracies…

                Look, regardless how bad our military accounting is, the money and capabilities required to start moving asteroids is far beyond the capabilities of not only the U.S., but every other country too.

                And you have yet to identify why such an endeavor is a better solution than what is available on Earth today. Because you read a science fiction story about it? Anthrax and Sarin are much cheaper weapons of mass destruction than wrangling and dropping an asteroid on someone.

              • LOL, yes gas and biologicals are cheap, but as I pointed out to Oler, Carl Sagan was hired as a consultant to the Pentagon during the 1960s to look into nuking the moon and knocking NEOs out of their orbits. Sci-fi concepts for sure, but actually considered.

                Look, all I’m saying is that 50 years on, asteroid manipulation should be part of the conversation. Planetary Resources has it as the culmination of their business plan. It’s expensive now, but won’t always be.

                Planetary Resources might be tied up legally in the international courts for years over this.

      • amightywind

        In the movie As Good as it Gets – I know great reference – I love the line by Nicholson “I am drowning here and you are describing the water!”. Actually the whole thing nicely applies.

        Your rambling diatribe bring to mind another quote from that picture:

        “Sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.”

  • Explorer08

    What is abundantly clear in this forum is that no one who posts has any influence whatsoever on what is decided in Washington or at NASA. The same old stuff keeps happening over and over and over in DC. And….the same old conversations here keep happening over and over and over. The forum appears to be just a place to engage in a gnashing of teeth over things that cannot be changed.

    • common sense

      Of that you have no idea and further so what? Just shut up and accept? Is that it?

    • Coastal Ron

      Explorer08 opined:

      What is abundantly clear in this forum is that no one who posts has any influence whatsoever on what is decided in Washington or at NASA.

      And I’m sure you’re not surprised to learn that you are continuing our fine tradition… ;-)

      The forum appears to be just a place to engage in a gnashing of teeth over things that cannot be changed.

      So this is just what you were looking for?

      For myself, I come here to discuss, debate and learn, and though we sometimes get bogged down in less than useful conversations, overall Space Politics is the best blog I’ve come across to discuss the politics of space.

      Join the conversation – if you dare. But just as politics is sometimes described as a contact sport, debating the politics of space is not for the thin skinned and inarticulate of the world.

    • amightywind

      The forum appears to be just a place to engage in a gnashing of teeth over things that cannot be changed.

      What is politics in a nation of 310 million people but that? Space politics is small part of the din of social networking that does have a cumulative effect. You would never conclude that there was deep satisfaction with America’s space program by reading this forum.

      And….the same old conversations here keep happening over and over and over.

      I don’t see it. But Ares I was certainly the way to go…

      • Robert G. Oler

        wind wrote:

        ” You would never conclude that there was deep satisfaction with America’s space program by reading this forum.”

        because there is not RGO

      • Coastal Ron

        amightywind opined:

        You would never conclude that there was deep satisfaction with America’s space program by reading this forum.

        Wow, ya think? However, if Congress would kill the SLS and MPCV pork programs, and use that funding for space hardware that utilize existing rockets for beyond LEO human exploration, then you would see much more enthusiasm not only on this forum, but the space community in general.

  • common sense

    “You would never conclude that there was deep satisfaction with America’s space program by reading this forum.”

    Deep satisfaction??? There is no such thing. Or you will have to elaborate because last I checked 50% of the public or so supports NASA as it is which is not the reflection of a “deep” satisfaction. “Fifty-eight percent of Americans say NASA is doing an excellent (13%) or good (45%) job.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/121736/majority-americans-say-space-program-costs-justified.aspx

    Or are you saying that there is deep satisfaction with President Obama as well? Please tell us all. “President Barack Obama’s job approval rating has increased slightly to 52% since Election Day, after averaging 50% in the month prior to the election”
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159215/obama-approval-slightly-election.aspx

    And don’t tell me that 58% is so much more than 52% considering the margin of error of those polls usually in the 3 to 5%.

  • Dave Hall

    Jeff Foust: A key issue he identified for any human missions beyond Earth, be it Moon, Mars, or asteroids, is funding.

    Another key issue is popularity of the programme seeking funding.

    I’ve long thought that a first mission to Mars (and back to the Moon) will have great media value … and that a good realistic movie (or TV series) story about Mars can help to build popular consensus around going to Mars as a goal. Just a matter of finding the right story that appeals to a broad audience …

    As a token Christmas gift from South Africa to all the “old guys” of this forum (I’m merely 47 and feel like a kid around here ;->) I’d like to recommend a fantastic hard sci-fi novel I discovered on Amazon called “The Martian” by indie author Andy Weir. It is very pro-NASA and reminds of the movie Apollo 13 .. except this is a very gripping and engrossing story that plays out over nearly 500 days as an astronaut with a sense of humour is stranded of Mars, he endeavours to survive while NASA endeavour to rescue him.

    You can read the reviews (currently 120) on Amazon at:
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Martian-ebook/dp/B009IEXKXI

    or if you don’t have Kindle then the book is accessible in other ebook formats and in basic html on the Web at:
    http://www.galactanet.com/writing.html

Leave a Reply to dad2059 Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>