The NASA ARM mission is DEAD

[fredinno]

http://spacenews.com/house-bill-increases-nasa-planetary-spending-but-cuts-off-asteroid-redirect-mission/

But seriously though, if it was to be the precursor to asteroid mining tech testing, instead of pure pork, it might have actually survived.

[Panel]

This does not surprise me at all. 

I'm glad that they are pushing for the moon again. I could not find a single thing that asteroid missions would help with reaching Mars. 

[kunok]

Being so close to the elections this really means something? the next one can give money again. (Not from usa, i could be wrong)

[Spaceception]

Congress needs to get a grip, space exploration isn't for changing stuff up every year, it's for long term missions, once you fund something, keep funding it!

@Red Iron Crown That isn't too political, is it?

Edited June 1, 2016 by Spaceception

[tater]

The manned aspect of ARM was profoundly dumb in its final form, frankly. Do an asteroid sample return, but instead of just returning it, make it needlessly complex to pick up the sample. Brilliant!

Always thought the mission profile was awful, and I'm happy to see it go. Instead of the picture above, I'd be more likely to comment that a stopped watch is right twice a day.

[PB666]

1 minute ago, tater said:

The manned aspect of ARM was profoundly dumb in its final form, frankly. Do an asteroid sample return, but instead of just returning it, make it needlessly complex to pick up the sample. Brilliant!

Always thought the mission profile was awful, and I'm happy to see it go. Instead of the picture above, I'd be more likely to comment that a stopped watch is right twice a day.

I had my misgivings about the program, namely i did not think it was going to work, it was too dreamy eyed. And from congresses point of view and distrust of government, what if they screwed up and safe asteroid hits earth. That would be the end of space exploration. 

As for funding next cycle, forget that the HoR will not change. 

[Astrofox]

WHAAAAT?!

Someone! Kickstarter this mission!

And I totally agree with that @Spaceception

I don't like that they change stuff that would make us greater, and more memorable for something good rather than redirect funds to:

[insert thing that makes you cringe here]

After all, this'd be the first time man moved a celestial body into orbit around another.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Astrofox

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

im not happy about this, as it would have a nice scientific return, but it will free up more money, which is good. what i really hope they do, is build a deep space vehicle, and fly to NEOs, instead of bringing NEOs here.

[insert_name]

21 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

im not happy about this, as it would have a nice scientific return, but it will free up more money, which is good. what i really hope they do, is build a deep space vehicle, and fly to NEOs, instead of bringing NEOs here.

You mean like OSIRIS-REX, the sample return mission from asteroid Bennu. I know @IonStorm is working on it.

[Streetwind]

Erm, guys? Before you celebrate/grieve/comment etc, you might want to realize that no such thing has happened.

 

One of the two chambers of Congress axed the mission in the first draft of its version of the bill. However, before that bill can become law, it must first:
1.) actually be finalized by the House
2.) be reconciled with the Senate version of the same bill. The Senate did not axe the mission, so there will be a disagreement, and it could go either way.
3.) be signed off by the president. You know, the very same president who ordered the mission in the first place, and has veto rights if he doesn't like the bill.

 

So yeah, stating that "ARM is dead" based on the above (one and a half weeks old) article is about the same as going to a racing event, watching the first lap, and then running off to tell everyone that the driver currently in the lead has already won.

 

And in regards to "nothing of value was lost" - What about the first and only practical test of a extinction level event prevention concept that humanity has ever attempted or currently plans to attempt...?

Edited June 1, 2016 by Streetwind

[tater]

1 hour ago, Astrofox said:

WHAAAAT?!

Someone! Kickstarter this mission!

And I totally agree with that @Spaceception

I don't like that they change stuff that would make us greater, and more memorable for something good rather than redirect funds to:

[insert thing that makes you cringe here]

After all, this'd be the first time man moved a celestial body into orbit around another.

You know that they abandoned moving an entire asteroid a long time ago, right? The last iteration of ARM had a robot probe taking a small rock (a couple hundred kg?) off the surface of the asteroid, then bringing THAT to the L point (think that was the plan), then they send Orion up to pick up the tiny rock. It is no more moving a celestial body into orbit than any single rock sample collected by Apollo was then put into orbit around the Moon by the LEM.

There is nothing about ARM that could not have been done by a robot, sending people was make-work for Orion, nothing more.

Edited June 1, 2016 by tater

[benjee10]

11 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

And in regards to "nothing of value was lost" - What about the first and only practical test of a extinction level event prevention concept that humanity has ever attempted or currently plans to attempt...?

As it stands, ARM really isn't much use as an extinction prevention mission, particularly not the manned portion which, as previously noted, seems like a needlessly complex way of returning an asteroid sample. A purely unmanned redirection mission with the manned portion being reassigned towards a return to the Moon seems a much more sensible proposition to me.

[tater]

ARM was not a test of anything that would be used to prevent an extinction level event. Sampling a nearly co-orbital rock is not at all the same as being able to redirect something in an eccentric trajectory.

3 minutes ago, benjee10 said:

As it stands, ARM really isn't much use as an extinction prevention mission, particularly not the manned portion which, as previously noted, seems like a needlessly complex way of returning an asteroid sample. A purely unmanned redirection mission with the manned portion being reassigned towards a return to the Moon seems a much more sensible proposition to me.

Yeah, instead of lifting a boulder-ish sized chunk, then making people poke at it, because SLS/Orion, they could simply grab a smaller sample, then go directly to earth.

[fredinno]

40 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Erm, guys? Before you celebrate/grieve/comment etc, you might want to realize that no such thing has happened.

 

One of the two chambers of Congress axed the mission in the first draft of its version of the bill. However, before that bill can become law, it must first:
1.) actually be finalized by the House
2.) be reconciled with the Senate version of the same bill. The Senate did not axe the mission, so there will be a disagreement, and it could go either way.
3.) be signed off by the president. You know, the very same president who ordered the mission in the first place, and has veto rights if he doesn't like the bill.

 

So yeah, stating that "ARM is dead" based on the above (one and a half weeks old) article is about the same as going to a racing event, watching the first lap, and then running off to tell everyone that the driver currently in the lead has already won.

 

And in regards to "nothing of value was lost" - What about the first and only practical test of a extinction level event prevention concept that humanity has ever attempted or currently plans to attempt...?

The only part that would be useful to test asteroid redirection was the gravity tractor, and that's basic physics (Objects with mass attract each other). Not to mention, there is going to be a ESA-NASA asteroid Impact mission to test out that sort of redirection.

Also, nobody in Congress supports this mission (it has little support in the science community too). If the president vetos an entire budget bill (keep in mind, these budget bills are not just for NASA, but for a collection of agencies, all crammed together in a single bill) just for a single mission, it will survive- but the next president won't be so picky- ARM was Obama's baby.

 

I think it's fair to say very little was lost, and that it probably won't survive, even if it survives this round.

[tater]

It's kind of funny to see Congress demanding SLS/Orion, then simultaneously removing one of the only missions that they had for the stupid thing.

[Robotengineer]

Should have canceled SLS and Orion with it. There is no point in NASA doing something that private enterprises can do better and faster, especially building rockets/capsules. Instead, NASA should push the envelope.

[cantab]

If SLS isn't pushing the envelope then what the heck is? No "private enterprise" rocket in service or well in development will lift as much as even SLS Block 1.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, tater said:

It's kind of funny to see Congress demanding SLS/Orion, then simultaneously removing one of the only missions that they had for the stupid thing.

Are they acting out of character, certainly not. 

[tater]

No, it's in their makeup to be... not terribly smart. (is that diplomatic enough?  ) The one political thing that is likely safe to say, since no one likes politicians, lol.

[Boovie]

4 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Congress needs to get a grip, space exploration isn't for changing stuff up every year, it's for long term missions, once you fund something, keep funding it!

It's truly unfortunate that congress and the general public (who, let's no forget, elects those who cast these votes) are far more concerned with the here and now. They always seem to be looking to cut the budget or, if they can't cut it, at least cut corners with what they approve.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Boovie said:

It's truly unfortunate that congress and the general public (who, let's no forget, elects those who cast these votes) are far more concerned with the here and now. They always seem to be looking to cut the budget or, if they can't cut it, at least cut corners with what they approve.

I've never really agreed with this mission, I wish they just shot straight for Mars, but they've funded it, they have some hardware, just let them do the mission, and stop wasting money!

[Boovie]

2 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

Should have canceled SLS and Orion with it. There is no point in NASA doing something that private enterprises can do better and faster, especially building rockets/capsules. Instead, NASA should push the envelope.

One of NASA's upcoming projects is a mission to Europa. With current technology the travel time to Europa would be about 7 years. With the SLS it would be cut to about 3-4 years depending on the launch window. SLS would not the the end game, as you'd have to keep improving, but it would allow us to more easily and quickly explore the entire solar system and beyond. We need the SLS.

1 minute ago, Spaceception said:

I've never really agreed with this mission, I wish they just shot straight for Mars, but they've funded it, they have some hardware, just let them do the mission, and stop wasting money!

As of now, it's about smart spending, but I do want to throw this out there: if NASA's budget today was equivalent to what it was in the days of the Apollo missions, it would be approx. $100 billion. Instead of nitpicking what we fund and don't, let's throw NASA (more or less) that level of funding so that we can expand and explore the solar system and beyond.

[Bill Phil]

I think they should have at least made a program to try and capture a small roid. The extra stuff isn't necessary. 

But if we put a station at EML-1, we could take the roid there. And send some equipment for prospecting?

[CptRichardson]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

If SLS isn't pushing the envelope then what the heck is? No "private enterprise" rocket in service or well in development will lift as much as even SLS Block 1.

Or, here's a thing:

They can fund SpaceX to get the FH built early, and use the massively cheaper vehicle to launch much more often, even if the payload isn't quite as much, assemble a ship in orbit with lofted modules, and do things that way, since SpaceX can actually field a reasonable launch rate now.

[Robotengineer]

1 hour ago, Boovie said:

One of NASA's upcoming projects is a mission to Europa. With current technology the travel time to Europa would be about 7 years. With the SLS it would be cut to about 3-4 years depending on the launch window. SLS would not the the end game, as you'd have to keep improving, but it would allow us to more easily and quickly explore the entire solar system and beyond. We need the SLS.

But is it worth it to cut the travel time by 3-4 years? And without a coherent Mars and/or space exploration architecture, it is nice to have but ultimately purposeless.

2 hours ago, cantab said:

If SLS isn't pushing the envelope then what the heck is? No "private enterprise" rocket in service or well in development will lift as much as even SLS Block 1.

Perhaps I am being a bit heavy handed by lumping SLS in with Orion. There is the BFR, though you're careful phrasing seems to avoid it.

52 minutes ago, CptRichardson said:

Or, here's a thing:

They can fund SpaceX to get the FH built early, and use the massively cheaper vehicle to launch much more often, even if the payload isn't quite as much, assemble a ship in orbit with lofted modules, and do things that way, since SpaceX can actually field a reasonable launch rate now.

FH wouldn't work for some of the proposed missions for SLS, but the BFR almost certainly would work (though talking seriously about SpaceX projects with little detail is taboo around here).