Future of the Asteroid Redirect Mission budget

[Langkard]

I decided to place this here instead of the Science forum because it has a political element to it.

Did anyone else watch the US House of Reps subcommittee hearing on the proposed 2015 NASA budget yesterday? While both parties are generally supportive of NASA, particularly most members of this subcommittee, it quickly became apparent yesterday just from the opening statements of the Space subcommittee chairman, Republican Steven Palazzo, and a rather unusual appearance (he isn't on the subcommittee and it is unusual for the full committee chair to appear at a subcommittee hearing) by the full Science and Technology committee chairman, Republican Lamar Smith, that Republicans are going after the Asteroid Redirect Mission. Both of them made clear statements questioning the need for the ARM and its applicability to space exploration. Apparently the ARM has been chosen by certain members of Congress as a target for budget cutting, so that they can redirect (pun intended) money to areas where they can benefit more, such as NASA-corporate partnerships. I am concerned that this mission might lose its funding, since the Republicans control the House of Reps and the House of Reps controls the budget. I recommend that everyone here who is a citizen of the USA take a moment to write an email to their US Representative, no matter the party, expressing support for NASA and especially for the Asteroid Redirect Mission.

[NovaSilisko]

Some of the criticisms are valid, though. They still don't have a valid target for the mission, and I think it's unlikely they'll have an asteroid in lunar orbit by the previously planned 2021 timeframe. That being said, cutting the budget of the thing doesn't exactly help it go any faster.

[SuperBigD60]

Part of me wants to say this is awful (and frankly, I probably will shoot an email to my representative or senator or something), but another part of me thinks that this is ok, good even.

With all the issues the govt tries to tackle these days, I feel like trying to save money any way they can without limiting the service to its people is a good thing.

And, making NASA smaller will help open the door wider for private companies like SpaceX or Orbital Sciences to start doing more things and taking on more roles that NASA once held.

So maybe this is a short term loss, long term gain sort of thing.

Or I could be wrong, hence me still wanting to email congress and tell them how stupid they are for cutting NASA's budget.

[tychochallenge]

government cannot do anything these days, its a bureaucracy. If SLS funding is cut as Charles Bolden proposed, we have no hope for missions beyond LEO unless we borrow rockets from China (possibly not Russia because of tensions in Crimea, they might cut of access to the ISS). So our only hope is from private industry like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Inspiration Mars, and dare I say it, Mars One. There is also no specific plan for NASA to follow by, once SLS is built what will we do with it? Its too expensive for LEO operations/trips to ISS(SpaceX can do it). I'm not saying it can't get to the planets, but there is just no specific plan, and NASA hasn't even figured out how they will get to the asteroid, how they will get it into Earth/moon orbit, and where the funding will come from. In my view, SLS will become like Energia Shuttle, one or two flights, then canceled by government bureaucracy and budget cuts.

Edit: Info may be a little outdated

[vger]

Sounds to me like someone who has a vested interest in one of those "corporate partnerships" is probably behind this. Now way is this just an "it's too expensive" decision.

It's also the most unique achievement for NASA or JPL now in the forseeable future, aside from Rosetta. Besides actually capturing the asteroid, repeat research missions to said asteroid would be so darned cheap.

...and the bratty 5-year old version of myself says: I want Earth to have two moons.

Edited March 29, 2014 by vger

[SaSquatch]

It does have the trademark elements of a political fight. Opposition President proposes budget and (relatively) ambition goal, draws Congressional Representatives to pick a fight in the name of fiscal crisis all while cloaked in obscurity when the public cares more about justin bieber(don't care if that's how it's spelled) then they do science or space exploration. Reminds me of the many Anti-Video games/pro-family fights. Politicians taking on "easy" fights to shore up their demographics (How many times did the House vote to repeal the ACA?). Let's not confuse the politics of convenience with policy, or competence. It's an election year and the campaign ads are already flooding in on all media. I'm in a State with an open senate seat... yea, lots of money and mud is being thrown around here already (I have never hated Youtube ads more).

It is a crisis for NASA however. They were hit by sequestration, just like most agencies. This is a Republican fight with a Democratic President about essentially restoring pre-2012 budget levels to NASA. And everyone on that committee is up for reelection. Let us hope that public inspiration is restored from this apathy of discovery and exploration that has infected public consciousness and science education. Reminds me, I need to catch last weeks episode of Cosmos.

[vger]

Heh, SaSquatch, I didn't want to be the first one to suggest it, given how quickly this thread could go downhill as a result. Obama likes NASA, which is reason enough for half of the nation to not like it. It's a sad age when people judge an idea based on where it comes from, or who supports it, rather than judging the idea on its own merit.

[SaSquatch]

I think regardless of anyones specific opinions or political affiliations, we can all agree there are political realities and political conveniences that are exploited by both parties. And nobody here lacks an interest in space exploration. So the common ground is the reality of further exploration of the cosmos and how we might go about doing it.

Still waiting on pins and needles for Juno and New Horizons personally. First images of Pluto (of decent resolution) will not be a small thing. Bigger then Space LEGOs anyways

[SuperBigD60]

It's easy to complain about how this country is so clearly going down the crapper.

But then, thoughts like that have been around since before 1776, so clearly, the idea that the world is worse off than it used to be "in the good ol days" is not new. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's definitely not unique to this era.

But, as far as me, I'd rather use that as motivation to do something, set my own goals, change the world, you know?

I'm nothing special, but sometimes it looks like no one wants to do anything to try and change the way things are. If the government won't do anything to bolster public opinion about space and discovery, I'd say its up to us.

[SaSquatch]

Nicely put.

I'm reminded of a Jefferson quote , "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

I'm not suggesting this in the political sense but rather... if we remain silent in a topic that we care about, we are accepting the outcome provided by those we complain about.

I know my house Rep (Montana only has 1) is a freshman congressman who is too busy running for the open senate seat and is not likely to have any say on the matter let alone pull... Daines if anyone was wondering.

But I'm with Langkard and will probably type out some emails to Daines as well as the guys running for his Seat and see what the replys are. Personally I'm for the Mission, if for no other reason then to keep something akin to focus with NASA or just money in the coffers. It's always easier to sell a cut then a budget increase. Lets maybe avoid the slow bleeding death of faster, better, cheaper and see what waits for us just over the horizon.

[vger]

What bugs me about this particular mission, and granted, it isn't my favorite among the things NASA is doing/wants to do currently. But its potential to bring space back into the forefront is greater than anything else.

#1, With a good enough telescope, anyone might have a shot at actually looking towards the moon and finding the asteroid. The odds are even better if its orbit is programmed in, and I'm sure all telescope companies will put that into the software. To simply see that thing, and know that we put it there, will be incredible. Backyard astronomers can't even do that with the Apollo landings.

#2, Speaking of the Apollo landings, humans would be going beyond low Earth orbit for the first time in over 40 years. Again, a huge boon for interest in NASA. No doubt such a thing would be heavily televised (in HD glory) and would stand a chance of NASA grabbing the spotlight in a way that it hasn't done since the moon landings.

#3, Maybe just maybe, someone will think, "You know, since we're doing these missions to this asteroid, maybe we should go check out that big grey ball again too."

Edited March 29, 2014 by vger

[Langkard]

I have several hopes for the ARM.

It will encourage development of better ion propulsion systems for further exploration. The solar electric propulsion system is the IPS proposed for the Asteroid Redirect Mission is big. Just designing and building it will improve future ion propulsion systems. The current proposed design is for a SEP with 40-50 kW solar array, an specific impulse of ~3000 s and up to 10,000 kg of xenon. That's a pretty good first step toward a 100 kW system capable of cargo missions to the moon or Mars.

We really need to know more about the composition of Near Earth Objects. This mission will give us the ability to do that and also make the point that we need manned exploration. Robots are fine for capturing an asteroid, but we need the SLS and astronauts on site to actually study such an asteroid fully.

Vger is correct about the publicity value in such a mission. Let's face it. We really need something to spark the public interest again. Maybe it will even start people thinking seriously about things like detection and help get more funding for the B612 Foundation.

If corporations can get the idea that it isn't impossible to do things like the ARM, then maybe more of them will get on board with exploration and actual expansion into space, not just the bleeding edge few that are currently interested in things like asteroid mining. When the bigger conservative (not in the political sense, but in the sense of holding back and letting others do the path finding) corporations get interested, it will improve the outlook for funding priorities for ancillary projects, like renewed Lunar and Mars exploration. Getting the really big corporations interested is necessary because otherwise such things are too far in the future for their consideration.

We do have something positive our side. The chairman and the ranking member of that subcommittee are both very pro-NASA and pro-science, even though they are from different political parties. The same can't be said for all of the members of the full committee on Science and Technology (there are several members of the larger committee who have openly expressed belief in a 6000-year-old Earth )

[SaSquatch]

I have several hopes for the ARM.

It will encourage development of better ion propulsion systems for further exploration. The solar electric propulsion system is the IPS proposed for the Asteroid Redirect Mission is big. Just designing and building it will improve future ion propulsion systems. The current proposed design is for a SEP with 40-50 kW solar array, an specific impulse of ~3000 s and up to 10,000 kg of xenon. That's a pretty good first step toward a 100 kW system capable of cargo missions to the moon or Mars.

We really need to know more about the composition of Near Earth Objects. This mission will give us the ability to do that and also make the point that we need manned exploration. Robots are fine for capturing an asteroid, but we need the SLS and astronauts on site to actually study such an asteroid fully.

Vger is correct about the publicity value in such a mission. Let's face it. We really need something to spark the public interest again. Maybe it will even start people thinking seriously about things like detection and help get more funding for the B612 Foundation.

If corporations can get the idea that it isn't impossible to do things like the ARM, then maybe more of them will get on board with exploration and actual expansion into space, not just the bleeding edge few that are currently interested in things like asteroid mining. When the bigger conservative (not in the political sense, but in the sense of holding back and letting others do the path finding) corporations get interested, it will improve the outlook for funding priorities for ancillary projects, like renewed Lunar and Mars exploration. Getting the really big corporations interested is necessary because otherwise such things are too far in the future for their consideration.

We do have something positive our side. The chairman and the ranking member of that subcommittee are both very pro-NASA and pro-science, even though they are from different political parties. The same can't be said for all of the members of the full committee on Science and Technology (there are several members of the larger committee who have openly expressed belief in a 6000-year-old Earth )

Agreed. Inspiration, Technology, and Practical Applications.

[Nibb31]

First of all, EM-2 (the 1st manned flight of SLS-Orion) is scheduled for 2021.

The robotic SEP plastic bag part of the ARM mission is supposed to take 3 years, which means it should launch in 2018 to be ready for EM-2. It takes about 5 to 10 years to design and build something like this, so it's pretty much impossible for EM-2. Let's be optimistic and imagine that Congress gives it a green light in 2015, which means it might be ready for launch in 2020, with an ARM in 2023 at the earliest.

This means that EM-2 in 2021 can only be a lunar flyby (which is probably a much safer alternative for a first test run of the ECLSS). With the ARM being EM-3 in 2023.

No way is SLS going to survive a launch rate of 3 flights from 2017 to 2023. The whole plan is unworkable.

[vger]

Even so, Wednesday's memo is expected to intensify the debate in Congress over restoring NASA's ability to launch astronauts from US soil. With the end of the US space shuttle program in 2010, Russia became the only country in the partnership able to transport crew members.

Probably not much to go on, but there's a brief moment in this Yahoo article, suggesting that the rocky relations between the U.S. and Russia could actually benefit the future of NASA budgets. As it is right now, the government has been happy to let Russia get our people into space. If the situation worsens, the U.S. will be earthbound until NASA or one of the commercial space programs starts doing its own orbital work. I wonder what certain politicians hate more? Supporting a program that isn't a focus of their party, or allowing the U.S. to fall behind in yet another category? Probably the latter, based on other things going on, but maybe there's still a little 'space race' spirit left in some of these old D.C. fellows.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-suspends-relations-russia-putin-holds-cards-235300622.html