Advisors to NASA: Dump the asteroid mission and go to Mars orbit instead

[bananas]

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Houston Chronicle

At the conclusion of its meeting the NASA Advisory Council adopted a “finding” that the asteroid redirect mission should be dropped in favor of demonstrating solar electric propulsion on a Mars orbit mission. That could include a Phobos or Deimos sample return, but the council wanted to leave NASA some flexibility to study all options.

“If this technology is designed to go to Mars and back, let’s send it to Mars and back,” said Steve Squyres, chairman of the advisory committee. The vote was unanimous.

This “finding” represents the opinion of the committee and is not binding on NASA. However it will likely spur NASA to at least further study a Mars orbit option, and will embolden the many critics of NASA’s asteroid mission.

<snip>

Read more: http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2015/04/advisors-to-nasa-dump-the-asteroid-mission-and-go-to-phobos-instead/

---

Note: This was about the robotic asteroid redirect mission to bring an asteroid to lunar orbit, not the manned mission to the asteroid.

[bananas]

1. NASA Advisory Council: NASA Human Exploration Plan Insufficiently Funded

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

NAC: the current HEOMD/SMD human exploration plan is insufficiently funded.
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) April 10, 2015

Squyres: this is a pretty damning statement. Lets be certain what we mean
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) April 10, 2015

NAC can't come up with politically correct way to say there's not enough money for #NASA to do humans to Mars program pic.twitter.com/zn47u0Pygr
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) April 10, 2015


Read more: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/04/nasa-advisory-c-6.html

[longship]

2. Well, that's a good discussion to have.

But a manned Mars mission, even if for just orbit, would be hugely expensive, and possibly very deadly. With current tech it certainly would not likely even be possible to get the astronauts there and back alive.

That is why there are some who advocate an asteroid mission.

I am undecided. But the science is the science. And humans to Mars, even for just orbit, is literally a deadly serious affair. And a hugely expensive one.

[bananas]

3. The OP is just about the robotic asteroid redirect mission.

The asteroid redirect mission was originally going to grab an asteroid and bring it to lunar orbit. That was downsized to just a boulder from an asteroids surface.

[bananas]

4. The wording of the finding

High-performance solar electric propulsion (SEP) will likely be an
important part of an architecture to send humans to Mars. NASA's
current plan is to demonstrate a large SEP stage by using it to
maneuver a boulder that has been lifted from the surface of a small
asteroid, and to move the boulder to cis-lunar space.

Maneuvering a large test mass is not necessary to provide a valid in-
space test of a new SEP stage. We therefore find that a SEP mission
will contribute more directly to the goal of sending humans to Mars if
the mission is focused entirely on development and validation of the
SEP stage. We also find that other possible motivations for acquiring
and maneuvering a boulder (e.g. asteroid science, planetary defense)
do not have value commensurate with their probable cost.

Instead of relocating a boulder from an asteroid, we suggest that a
more important and exciting first use of this new SEP stage would be a
round trip mission to Mars, flying it to Mars orbit, and then back to the
Earth-Moon system and into a distant retrograde lunar orbit.

[longship]

19. Thanks, I read it.

The Mars SEP mission is specifically for prep for a manned Mars mission, which I am beginning to think is not a good idea at this time, at least unless we expand NASA funding fairly dramatically. We could do it, but wars are expensive.

Anyway, I want Moon Base Alpha!

[Orrex]

5. Or we could scrap the F-35 and use the money to fund both missions and then some

[bloomington-lib]

6. Yes! And not only would that save money in the near-term, it would send a signal saying

if you don't complete a project(military) on time and on budget, you'll be dropped. Really, the gov't should sue to get some of the money back.

[Plucketeer]

8. I couldn't agree more

Just HOW MANY times do we have to watch as a piss-poor piece of crap emerges from one more failed attempt at a one-size-fits-all aircraft. I mean.... why not build 747s with bomb bay doors and bristling with deadly lasers? You could do anything with a plane like that - transport, bomber, attack platform - even fighter. And if I'm not mistaken - would cost less per unit than a limping F-35!

Remember the F-111? Not too many do. It was another compromise turd - just as the F-35 is proving to be.

[Diclotican]

10. Plucketeer

Plucketeer

The problem, is that F35 have not just been payd for by the US taxpayers - it is a multi-national program, where many nations have spendt a few billions eatch, being part of the JSF from the early 1990s - and who might could be little crossed if US just closed down the program and said they would spend the money on a trip to mars.. And not pay back what eatch of the other nations have also been contributed to the program since the program started in the early 1990s....

Diclotican

[christx30]

23. "You pays yo money,

you takes your chances."

What my supervisor says before any PPV boxing match.

[Diclotican]

25. christx30

christx30

I would LOVE US to act the same way next time they are working on a huge inter-national program - and the rest of the club, just leave the program - On the prospect it cost to much - and US is out of a principal program for their national security.... I would LOVE to se if the US would act with constraint - and to accept it without fuzz and treating to nuke the other partners..... Just because the US is the biggest partner in this - is not the same it is the same the US can just give up the program - without punishment - a program like F35 have some iron-clad deals into it - so the nations who have been part of the program - is getting their money back one way or another - and that could cost US taxpayers a lot more than it is worth - just to get a man to Mars using the resources saved one the F35 - to a space program to mars....

If US was to give up F35 - that would cost US far more than just a few disgruntled customers - in this business - satisfactions is important - and Lockheed Martin is thinking at least 30-40 year down the road - to the next major program is needed - if they was to falter on this program, their customers might go to others to get their aircrafts to their defense. Maybe even going all the way to Russia for the Si34/35 fighters - even the PAK-50 who is currently under development - and who will be a challenge to the supremacy of the US aircraft manufactures - as it is at least at the same level as the current F35... One of the things that have made customers coming back, for new aircrafts from the US - is because they are given top-notch aircrafts - who no other builders can give... and the F35 is a extreme capable aircraft - if the program is finished... And would be that, for the next 30 years at least.. Not necessary to wage a war - but to making sure peace have a better chance than a war...

A weapons platform like F35, is not like a boxing match - and I suspect you know the difference....

Diocletian

[Diclotican]

9. Orrex

Orrex

That would fly well, with the nations who have been on board with the F35, from the early start, when it was SF it was been talking about in the early 1990s - who have spend millions, if not billions of dollars to make sure the F35 will be a reality - and if US was to scrap F35, would have nothing to fall back on - as their current fighter jets is starting to be old - even with the MLU upgrade after 2000, our F16 is starting to age - and have a finite lifespan to 2018-2020 - at least 2024 - then we either need new aircrafts, or have to disband the whole air force - and in the current world we have today - i doubt the last one is a case to even sugest... Then many nations have to look for alternatives - and I doubt Lockheed Martin would warm over the F16 to many times after block 60/70... Its F35 or maybe nothing for a country like Norway - who have trusted billions of money who could have been used to better use, if we had known that the F35 might be disbanded - because of the rising cost, who truly have been astronomical.... I think also - it exist a few contracts out there, who might get Lockheed Martin into more problem than they want to be in - if they just close down F35 - and have nothing to offer... Even if F16 have been a great aircraft for the air force - it is still a old aircraft- born when i was born in 1976...

Even if the resources was used to something noble as a man to mars - I doubt somehow many of the nations who had trusted Leched Martin, and US with a lot of its money - will accept just that the program is closed down - and the money spent on a space quest to make US looking better... It it not just the US who have used resources to make F35 a possibility - other have also been part of the program - and spent a few billions on it... As the program was far to expensive for US alone...

Diclotican

[Orrex]

11. Well, it was a pointless project from the drawing board and forward

This was obvious to everyone who didn't stand to profit from this obscene cash cow. The fact that we (and other nations) have invested billions doesn't make it a good or worthwhile project, alas.

[Diclotican]

14. Orrex

Orrex

So, what you sugest - when the airframes we do have - is starting to crack - and fall out of the skyes becouse they have ended their total lifespan - that we just give up - and pack the remaining aircraft in mootballs - waiting for a magical fix to our little problem?

Diclotican

[Orrex]

15. Obviously, you're posing a false dichotomy

A lame and patronizing false dichotomy, at that. You're framing the only two choices as:

Do nothing, while allowing our existing fleet to crumble
vs.
Spend endless of billions of dollars on an unproven platform that won't bear fruit for at least several more years, if ever


Instead, how about:

Build more of the existing craft, upgrading as able/appropriate
Build a less preposterously expensive replacement craft
Hell, build and design several expensive replacement craft for the same price as the F-35

or, perhaps most outrageous of all:
Seek solutions that don't require hundreds of billions of tax dollars to be shoveled into the pockets of Lockheed Martin

For that matter, who's fucked up idea was it to demand that a single platform serve as all things to all branches of the military in the first place?

[Diclotican]

18. Orrex

Orrex


It is by no means "false" the reality of the matter is that our, againg F16 is starting to have some real issues - who have to be adressed sooner than later - even if we was able to magically fix most of the problems the current fleet of F16 have - we would still have issues who are not going away, just puting band aid on the aircrafts - to lets say 2030 - and the band aid is costing at least as mutch as new aircrafts wil cost operating at the same time...

Even if Norway was to buy the latest block 60/70 instead of the F35 we kind of was promised as the end product of our involment in the program - the facts on the ground is that we migth need the hardware the F35 was promishing to get to our airforce - and from what I have been told by some of my friends, who are involved into the program - they claim it to be superior to everything they have ever encountered in an airframe - it is far more advanced - and the "situation awardness" is superiour to anything the norwigian royal airforce have ever been able to have... At least, if Norway had to go for the F16 fighter - instead of the "bomb-sled" F35 - at least some of the technology coming from the F35 could be integrated into the new model of F16 - as it is Locheed Martin who have build them to - and It would not be that difficult to rewire the whole aircraft into the new tech who F35 gave acess to I guess... Maybe it wil end up in a whole new Block for the F16 - where some of the stealth knowlegde can be used to make the new aircraft better suited to the 21 century - as the old F16 is a child of its time - even witht he MLU4 upgrade our aircraft got a while back - and who made the fighters more capable than the US models..

Somehow I think a homegrown aircraft, who can replease the F16 is way ahead in the future in Norway - If we had started 10 years ago - using the F16 as a framework - we might have getting closer to a homegrown fighter - who is maybe less expansive than the current F16 - and who is homegrown in its technology - and based on the needs our airforce have - but that would cost trendemous money - even if we based it around the current F16 Falcon... And I do not think our Parliament would have accepted a program like this even if we got a advanced fighter, customized to our own needs - and based on what we is able to build on our own... Our Parliament Stortinget is infamous for beeing able to discuss a case to its dead - and then restart the prosess over a few times, before we finaly got into a don deal - who migth be a whole different than the orginal one.. If you think your Congress is a horse trade - it is nothing compared to the horse trade you might get in our Parliament sometimes. Sometimes it works like glue or as the speed of a glassiar - but sometimes it can be suprising fast - and a solution to a problem be found just around the corner - withouth any hickups at all... It is a wierd system - but it works perfectly....

If Norway, had been able to make a solution to the problem - withouth spending a buck to either Locheed Martin, Boeing and the others - I would have loved to solve that - and to spend the money saved into making our infrastructure better - railroad tracks who can make the Inter-city trains go faster - more advanced form of transportation - new roads who can replase the ones who is not up to the task - fix what we do have off problems when it came to public founded healtcare and sutch - But the sad part - is that we live in a corner of the world - where our big nabour to the east have been playing hardball with NATO for the last couple of years.. Even if Norway and Russia is on good terms for the most parts - both sides have a long history of making progress to make sure peace are the norm - and Russia have, to be honest not being on a war footing with Norway since 1370 - when the local lord in Arkangels was pilaging the coast of Finmark for years.... But after that - Norway and Russia have been if not best of friends - so at least at peace with eatch others... As it should be... It is little ironic - that we are afraid of Russia - even though Russia have never attaced Norway since the middle ages.. Sweden, Denmark, Germany and even UK have attaced Norway many times since 1370s - but it is Russia we should be afraid of go figure why...

I have no clue who got the idea about using a single airframe - to every service aviable... To me it sounds rather stupid - as it is allways better to have a aircraft suited to one job - than to have it suited to everyone... But then again - even the F16 have evolved into a whole different aircraft than it first was planned as - a lightwight fighter used for the countries who was not willing to fork over the money nessesary for the bigger F14, or the F15 Eagle.. Who might aslo have been way to mutch a bird for the Royal Norwigian Airforce back in the 1970s, and early 1980s.. Over the last 30 years - the airframe of the F16 have grown in wight - even if the aircraft itself is the same - or at least on the outside.. At the inside it is a whole different aircraft, far more superiour and advanced than back then...

Diclotican

[Warren DeMontague]

7. The asteroid mission strikes me as silliness, I agree.

The long game is long-duration human flight outside of the immediate vicinity of Earth orbit. The "asteroid capture" nonsense was basically an admission that NASA isn't funded, willing or ready to put the resources in to developing the tech to take a crew out of the vicinity of the Earth-moon system, to to fudge the idea of "sending humans to" somewhere new, they would bring the somewhere new into Lunar Orbit and then send the crew there.

It would be an impressive technical accomplishment but it would not substantially move the ball forward in terms of capability of sending humans into the rest of the solar system.

[LongTomH]

12. I would favor the asteroid return mission - for science value and future resource utilization

I remember the days of the old L-5 Society when we were arguing over the value of asteroid vs. lunar resources for construction of solar power satellites, space habitats and other large space structures. Asteroids offer metals as well as the volatiles (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) that are missing from the lunar regolith.

Also, nickel-iron asteroids could be a source of platinum group metals (platinum and iridium), as well as rare earth metals that could be returned to Earth. There have been several proposals for asteroid mining, using near-term technology that could pay for themselves.

[Calista241]

13. 100% agree

Bring asteroids to earth orbit for resource harvesting makes more economic sense than going to Mars. Is there anything on Mars worth going there for? Getting to Mars and then coming back would be 10x a more difficult project the asteroid program is.

[bananas]

17. I agree, but NASA already decided on option B

just get a boulder off an asteroid instead of the whole asteroid. So getting a boulder off Phobos or Deimos instead of an asteroid would make sense.

Edit: in case you missed the news about option B
http://m.space.com/28934-nasa-asteroid-capture-mission-boulder.html

[Liberalagogo]

16. Hello...NASA!!!!

There's a giant rock a LOT closer that we should be exploiting as a stepping stone to another planet.. It's called THE MOON.

[drm604]

20. Perhaps the Mars mission should be multi-national.

That way resources could be pooled, plus it would be an endeavor of mankind rather than one country.

We have plenty of experience working with Russia and Europe and there are other countries with space programs. China even has a manned program.

[Klong]

21. Our space experience with Russia

is local, given our solar system. I can't see us working with them going to Mars if we can't work with them here on Earth first.

[drm604]

22. I'm not so sure.

We seem to be able to keep our space activities separate from our earthly disputes. If we can't, there are other countries that may be interested.

Only the US, Russia, and China, have the capability to launch humans so far, but there are plenty of other countries with programs of varying levels of capability that might be interested in participating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

[christx30]

24. The movie 2010 is what I picture

when I think about a U.S./Russia space mission. About midway through, the Cold War looks to be hearing up a bunch. The crews are ordered to go back to their respective ships, and not interact unless there is an emergency.