1) $100 million is only 3.8% of what the Keck study claimed it would cost ($2.65 billion) to conduct the asteroid retrieval mission. And it will cost more, probably much more, with NASA running it. At this tiny funding level, this is not a hard and fast commitment from the Administration to this mission. Rather, it’s a small pot to explore the viability and desirability of such a mission, with a strong commitment to come later if it proves out.

2) The Administration’s rationale — that asteroid retrieval will enable the President’s 2025 human NEO goal — is flaky. If “President Obama’s goal of sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025 can’t be done with foreseeable civil-space spending”, then where is the remaining $2.55 billion — probably more like $5 billion-plus by the time NASA is done — going to come from to execute this mission? If we have to outsource the service module for MPCV to ESA because we can’t find a multi-hundred million dollar wedge in NASA’s budget to build it domestically, why are we starting multi-billion dollar initiatives?

3) Before tacking on more unaffordable initiatives, a better solution to the Administration’s dilemma would be to pursue more affordable systems than SLS and MPCV. For example, a 70-ton EELV Phase 2 at $2.6 billion would save upwards of $6 billion over what SLS is going to cost through Block I. Only once the Administration takes steps like that will things like an asteroid retrieval mission become possible within the foreseeable budget.

4) Regardless of cost, the connection between the asteroid retrieval mission and SLS/MPCV is also flaky. If the point of SLS/MPCV is to enable long-range/long-duration missions beyond Earth orbit, then sending MPCV to an asteroid that’s been moved into Earth orbit defeats that purpose. You’re not testing any human space flight systems (communications, life support, etc.) or operations under deep space or long-duration mission conditions. After billions of dollars, you’re no closer to proving that you have the equipment and procedures necessary to send humans to Mars (or pick another deep space target). In terms of advancing human space exploration, all you’ve proven is that you can rendezvous with a controlled object in Earth orbit. We’ve been doing that since Gemini 8 and Cosmos 186/188. Heck, even the Chinese can do that now.

5) On its own, asteroid retrieval is a worthy mission for NASA or another organization. The achievement of such a feat has large implications for planetary protection and space resource utilization. But it makes no sense budgetarily at NASA until the Administration and Congress clean up the SLS/MPCV mess. And its justification will probably never make sense in terms of a mission sequence to push back the frontiers of human space exploration.

And from that perspective it works.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_28_2013_p0-564163.xml

As for the environmental movement it seems obvious (to me at least) that the environment affects us all, whether we like it or not.

Not so much space “exploration”. Actually come to think of it space exploration has essentially no effect on any one. Especially the human kind of space exploration.

The only real meaningful advocacy is to make sure the government ensure technology transfer to the private sector and let the private sector figure why they would like to send humans to space.

We just saw that even the threat of an impact with all the possible associated consequences won’t move our Congress beyond hearings to market Armageddon.

1) The widespread support for your movement isn’t nearly as widespread as you thought
2) Your organizing power (i.e. power to mobilize votes) is limited
3) Your persuasive arguments are weak

In many cases, people may argue that failures don’t count because they’re not being pursued seriously. In that case, one must note that successful efforts, such like the environmental movement, have extensive, well-funded, and well-organized networks. The space community doesn’t perform well next to that kind of competition for political leverage.

In this respect, the petitions tell us a great deal about the movements behind them.

Click here for the campaign fundraising web site.

Click here to watch We Are the Explorers.

While well-intentioned, they miss the point just like the “Penny for NASA” movement. Most people don’t care about exploration. Unless you demonstrate a tangible and immediate benefit to their everyday lives, you’re spinning your wheels.

They also ignore that there are private-sector efforts beyond NASA. NASA is a government agency beholden to the whims of Congress. It has a long legacy as a very inefficient bureaucracy. All the new technology is in the private sector.

Why we think playing a NASA promo in a few movie theatres will somehow convince Congress to bankroll a big bloated government space program is beyond me.