Astronauts to an asteroid: yes or no?

My April 6th post called for a mission shift for NASA: help commercial space industries succeed, don't compete with them.  Other US government departments understand this. The Energy Department sponsors research that helps make electricity more efficient, renewable sources more efficient, and even funds some large-scale projects. The Food and Drug Administration imposes strict tests on pharmaceuticals, which tend to make them more expensive, but in the end add to their safety and hence their desirability. The FAA runs an air traffic control system in order that commercial airlines can be safe and, yes, profitable.

NASA doesn't seem to get this. Case in point: the newly proposed NASA mission to capture an asteroid, tug it to a Lagrange point, and then have astronauts visit it.

The mission was called into question as the NASA Administrator testified before the House Science Committee. He said that "the goal is to remain the world's leader in space exploration." Well, at least there IS a goal. One Congressman asked, "Wouldn't going to the Moon be better preparation for an eventual manned Mars mission?" The Administrator said that "both are good" but that the Moon would be more expensive.

Sadly, the idea that NASA ought to be supporting the fledgling space resources industry didn't show up.

The choice of asteroid over Moon was apparently based on money. The Administrator stated, "Going to the Moon is a factor of three times more expensive." Really? I would pose several questions based on that statement:

1. Does that claim include the $18 BILLION being spent on the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule? In other words, would it cost $54 BILLION for a manned mission to the Moon? Of course not.

2. Then does the Administrator mean that the MARGINAL cost of the asteroid mission, $2.5 billion ABOVE the SLS and Orion development, is 1/3 of the MARGINAL cost of a Moon mission? This suggests that his mental model for re-developing the LEM is $7.5 billion. That seems about right.

3. Has the Administrator spoken to any member of the space resources industry, at Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries or Shackleton Energy? How do they assess the value of manned asteroid and lunar missions to their own business plans? What would they find most helpful?

The Administrator's statement of purpose, "exploration," can only represent the first phase of human expansion into the solar system. As has happened throughout history:

• The Spanish court sent Columbus to the New World on 4 missions of exploration. But after that, Spain's interest was in settlement, commerce and conquest.
•  James Cook came to the South Pacific on 3 missions of exploration. But after that, Britain needed a place for its prisoners, so Australia was colonized.
•  Lewis and Clark explored the Louisiana Purchase, but the intent was to understand where America's growing population could live, farm and prosper.

 Let us hope that NASA begins to pursue a larger purpose. Perhaps the goal expounded by XCor Aerospace president Jeff Greason, "settlement", is the right one.

I'd propose an alternative goal: an interplanetary economy. This concept emphasizes the role of robots, because human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous, and tends not to add much to the mission set that robots can already perform. NASA and its Congressional supporters are protecting human spaceflight because that was the source of past glory.

And let's go ask Planetary, Deep Space and Shackleton to help put together the long-term strategy. You won't get the same answer from the three of them: Shackleton wants to use astronauts (commercial employees, not NASA ones) to generate fuel from lunar ice. The other two want to extract minerals from asteroids. Where a manned mission to a captured asteroid fits with either of these, I don't know. Couldn't the money be better spent on developing autonomous technologies, robotic on-orbit assembly, and lightweight space robotic components? Perhaps. NASA should be asking people with skin in the game.