"This could help guarantee the successful deployment of many untended facilities to other targets in the future by bringing what humans do best: dealing with the unexpected and improvisation," Sykes said. "In the meantime, great science could also be achieved, but this is strictly bonus…not a rationale."
This could be done on the timescale envisioned by President Obama, Sykes said, with some initiative and little additional cost, and far less total cost than any other option.
Live off the (space) land
Existing Discovery mission proposals are on the table to fly a Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer-class spacecraft that would identify many NEO resource targets in orbits that would afford low-energy, short-duration missions, Sykes said.
Additionally, resource recovery experiments could be undertaken on the International Space Station using meteorite samples and other analog materials, Sykes said.
"Apollo taught us that doing something once or even a few times is no guarantee that it will ever be done again. If we want a permanent American presence in space, we need to learn to live off the land," Sykes said.
"Near-Earth objects are our best opportunity to accomplish this cost-effectively," he concluded.
Asteroids within reach
There's no lack of asteroids to focus upon, said Lindley Johnson, NEO Observations Program Executive at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Johnson noted that he doesn’t speak for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and not in a position to be able to say anything about the priorities for piloted/human spaceflight missions.
"I just know HEOMD has a great challenge to be able to build the basic capabilities needed for future human spaceflight with the budget prospects they’ve been given," Johnson told SPACE.com.
"But we also know there are a lot of near-Earth asteroids out there between here and Mars and we still see them on the horizon for the future of exploration. Maybe somewhat beyond this next hill we must climb, but they are still out there for us to reach for," Johnson said.
- Gallery: Visions of Deep Space Stations for Exploration
- NASA's 2013 Budget: What Will It Buy?
- 50 Years of Presidential Visions for Space Exploration
Copyright 2013 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentI remember the "Space Race" of the 60's. While Pres. Kennedy's speech no doubt played a role in its success, I believe the largest factor was fear - the perceived "Missile Gap." We were afraid of being vulnerable (as evidenced by the "Duck and Cover" drills in school). The goal was as much space exploration as it was gaining the ability to launch ICBM's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I can tell, we have no such motivation today. In order to make NASA's funding a priority, some threat must be identified that justifies the spending.
China!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to immediately start focusing on a cold war scenario with aliens. It doesn't actually matter if they exist. We weren't actually sure if Russia was ever a real threat either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Grey's are massing at the edge of our solar system. We need to defend our country and its values from the high tech alien socialist mono-mind. They are way ahead of us in FTL transport technology and femto-tech manufacturing. Their Weak Nuclear Force suppression bombs could wipe out the entire Earth in a flash, let us prepare drills to get our children under their beds in case they launch against us. We must rally our scientists to come up with a way of protecting ourselves.
I hate to say it, but conflict does drive innovation. Maybe we need a made up enemy for our own good.
(this content was created tongue in cheek - the point wasn't)
"If we want a permanent American presence in space, we need to learn to live off the land," Sykes said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch of the justification for NASA, "space exploration", etc. is taken for granted, not subject to public ends-means analysis. "Live off the land", he said. Whatever for?
Newt's idea ... a permanent Moonbase by 2020...was at least in the ballpark of public ends-means analysis. It would exist to mine He3 to fuel Earthside fusion reactors (that do not exist, by the way, and are a far cry from from any prototype Earthside fusion reactors that do exist). Someone's idea of pie in the sky.
SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk wants wants to send 80,000 people to colonize Mars. Read between the lines: heavylift launch vehicles, domed cities on Mars, living off the land, etc. But why? Who will pay? What benefits might accrue (except to the likes Elon Musk)?
Much ado about an asteroid deflection program to avoid dinosauring the human race. Funny thing though, the fact that so many PHAs are not discovered until a few days before they go whizzing by, near-missing us.
Yes, the crowd is more or less up for this stuff, not many public outcry to see business plans. So it goes for much of what passes for science in this time of endemic institutional waste and dramatically conflicted social priorities.
> "Live off the land", he said. Whatever for?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same technologies that would allow us to live in space also allow us to live sustainably on Earth, and that is something we definitely. In space you have to live off not much more than rocks and sunlight, because that is all there is. If we are going to sustain a few billion more people this century, at a decent quality of life, we can no longer afford to deplete limited resources. We have to live off what is everywhere, things like rocks and sunlight.
Since a lot more people are here on Earth than will be in space for a long time to come, these technologies should be developed and applied here first. Later, we can use them in space.
It's not NASA's mandate to solve the world's problems, so it may take other agencies to do the technology work, but once they exist, nothing stops NASA from using them. Alternately, NASA's mission could be altered to include the Earth as "another planet to develop" (it is, after all, 3rd of 8 major planets in the Solar System). The benefits to people here must be clear and direct, or they will not support the spending.
Although I am not particularly supportive of 'fear', the appalling condition of the NASA forces me to think the cold war age a desirable one. We went to the moon in the 1969 and it is 2013 and we are no where near the Mars! I think we have lost our guts. It took only 12 years from the first step in space to the first step the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's how ta gd'er done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the what the Chinese and maybe Russians are going to be doing - kicking our stupid Nuclear Denying candy asses right out of outer space.
The Dyson/Jules Verne nuclear gun.
3000 tons to the moon at $10 a lb.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/150-kiloton-nuclear-verne-gun.html
The First Law of Economics should be "Basic Research Always Pays Off." Usually in the short run, sometimes in the long run, but the First Law is immutable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's two words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr we could change our mindset to not require imminent threat as our primary motivator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA was created to beat the Russians in the space race. The 1960s space race was not driven by the quest for scientific knowledge but by global politics and the cold war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA should reinvent itself in the post-cold war era. Manned missions are the stuff of science fiction. I would go for practical science like developing new propulsion system, vastly improved radio scanning for ET intelligence and tracking of near-earth asteroids that might hit earth. Chemical rockets are 1940s technology. There must be a faster way to travel in space.
IMHO the moon should be colonized first, work out the kinks, then move on to Mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a hard wall obstructing any venture outside the protective shields of the atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic field: energetic solar and cosmic radiation. A 3 year roundtrip to Mars or a several month visit to an asteroid without protection will have calculated risks associated with them. Venturing outside our 2 protections during solar minima reduces this risk somewhat, but a sustained presence on Mars will require burying living facilities deeply underground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect there isn't much to do on an asteroid (like downtown Toronto on a weekend), even one as large as Vesta, except bring back buckets of rocks and soil which can best be done by robots. So, why go? What's the goal?
You make a very good point. Perhaps we should stick to robotic missions and finding protection from solar and cosmic radiation. Then when the robotic missions are common place (relative to the current situation) and we can protect from all that bad radiation then we can look at crewed missions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSykes may be right, but without popular backing, it is all hot air. The taxpayers need to be inspired to insist that congress fund the projects, or it wont fly. The Moon is much more inspiring than an asteroid, so it must be first, and the best way to get the people behind it is the threat of competition. We have to play up the Chinese Lunar program and the possibility of China claiming the Moon for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this