Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS
Login

You are here

Report: NASA Rank and File Not Sold on Crewed Asteroid Mission

U.S. President Barack Obama has given NASA the goal of sending astronauts to an asteroid by 2025. Credit: Lockheed Martin artist's concept

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama’s goal of sending astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 has yet to catch on at NASA’s regional field centers, where agency personnel detect a lack of budgetary commitment to a mission rife with unanswered technical questions, according to a new report from the National Research Council (NRC).

The report, “NASA’s Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus,” was written at the request of Congress and released Dec. 5.

“If you ask people down in the bowels of NASA, in the field offices — and we spoke to everybody from the directors to each of the field offices to college interns, and everything in between — this is not generally accepted,” Albert Carnesale, chairman of the NRC panel that wrote the report, told reporters during a teleconference. “There was not consensus that [an asteroid mission] was the next step on the way to Mars.”

Carnesale, chancellor emeritus of the University of California, Los Angeles, said “technical people” at NASA field centers told members of the NRC’s ad hoc Committee on NASA’s Strategic Direction that NASA has not yet picked an asteroid for crews to visit, nor determined the purpose of landing on such a body.

Obama in 2010 said that NASA should commit itself to sending astronauts to an asteroid around 2025 as a steppingstone to a crewed mission to Mars in the 2030s.

“[A] presidential statement does not a consensus make,” Carnesale said Dec. 5. “It’s also true, as people observe the budget and say, ‘Now how does that reflect this goal of going to an asteroid?’ The answer, to a first approximation, is not at all.”

NASA, which had a $17.8 billion budget for 2012, is spending about $3 billion a year on the heavy-lift Space Launch System and companion Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. While this hardware could serve an asteroid mission’s transportation needs, the agency has not identified funding for a crew habitat and other systems that such a mission would require.

Carnesale led a panel of 11 scientists, engineers and policy experts who canvassed the country to gather input from current and former NASA officials on the agency’s strategic direction. The committee’s first meeting was held May 1 here.

The central theme of the NRC report is that NASA lacks the funding to execute all of the planetary science, astronomy, Earth observation, human spaceflight and aeronautics missions on its plate.

As James Beggs, NASA administrator from 1981 to 1985, said during the committee’s June 26 meeting here, “there is too much institution for the program, and there is too much program for the budget.”

Neither Carnesale nor the committee he led identified specific ways to reduce NASA’s operating expenses, or to bring the agency’s size, mission and  infrastructure into alignment.

However, the NRC report provided four options for the agency’s decision makers in the government to consider:

  • “Institute an aggressive restructuring program to reduce infrastructure and personnel costs to improve efficiency.”
  • “Engage in and commit for the long term to more cost-sharing partnerships with other U.S. government agencies, private sector industries, and international partners.”
  • “Increase the size of the NASA budget.”
  • “Reduce considerably the size and scope of elements of NASA’s current program portfolio to better fit the current and anticipated budget profile. This would require reducing or eliminating one or more of NASA’s current portfolio elements (human exploration, Earth and space science, aeronautics, and space technology) in favor of the remaining elements.”

RESOURCES

NASA’s Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus

Article Comments

The four options for decision makers are inherently flawed, as they assume that NASA is doing about as good as it can with the current money it makes; and that's simply not true. $18b/year is a lot of money; it is definitely possible to do human exploration AND earth and space science AND aeronautics AND space technology with $18b a year - but NOT the way we are doing it. The $1.8b/year for SLS alone does not enable affordable, sustainable human space exploration - so why are we doing it? Just a portion of that money put into advanced enabling technologies, as the Obama Administration originally wanted, would actually ENABLE more and sustainable human exploration (as just one example). This NRC group did not seem to question the basic assumptions of what NASA works on, and how it works on them.

What you mean the Obama Administration did not think out an asteroid mission. You mean cutting the budget for NASA will cause them not to able to caring it out. I though once Obama says “So let it be written. So let it be done. “we would be at an asteroid by the end of the year. Just remember this NASA is a political arm of any administration and always well be. They have to fellow the course of that administration. Like Nixon with the Shuttle, Space Station with Regan and Return to the Moon with Bush. Now a watered down vision of Constellation has NASA making up missions to fit the new profile by going to an Asteroid. It would be far less money to just fellow the Bush plan (to land on the moon and set up a base) but push in farer in the future so the cost could spend out more than making up crazy things like flying all the way to Mars just to sit orbit to remote a rover or go to asteroid which was a part of Constellation anyway.

Add comment

Log in or register to post comments

Career Center