![]() This is a much cheaper mission than the retrieval mission and will actually provide scientists with new information about the make-up of extraterrestrial bodies.įurther calling into question the scientific merits of the administration’s proposal, NASA’s own Small Bodies Assessment Group stated in April 2013 that it was “interesting and entertaining, it was not considered to be a serious proposal because of obvious challenges, including the practical difficulty in identifying a target.”Īnother angle the administration has argued is that this mission will demonstrate technologies necessary for future exploration. Along these lines, NASA is already preparing to launch a robotic asteroid sample-return mission, called OSIRIS-Rex in 2016. These are the ones that scientists are interested in learning more about. The mission also would have little scientific value because the targeted asteroid would not be what is called a “carbonaceous chondrite.” These are the asteroids that contain water and could potentially retain organic compounds. In the event that NASA would ever have to redirect a “city-killer,” the techniques for the retrieval mission would have little relevance. ![]() Asteroids that are 7-10 meters simply disintegrate in our atmosphere.įocusing on smaller targets distracts from NASA’s work in characterizing and tracking larger asteroids. Asteroids of this size are ones that could cause significant damage, and NASA still has work to do to accomplish this goal. Any insight gained by such a mission would have little relevance to protecting against larger “city-killer” asteroids.Ĭongress directed NASA in 2005 to identify and track 90 percent of asteroids larger than 140 meters by 2020. The size of the target asteroid for this mission is only 7-10 meters in diameter, too small to cause any damage to Earth. The proposed asteroid retrieval mission would contribute very little to planetary defense efforts. So Congress has the obligation to ensure that any new NASA missions can be justified. This is a hefty price tag at a time when NASA can barely maintain its current mission priorities. While the exact mission cost is still unknown, experts have estimated it could be as much as $2.6 billion. The administration first attempted to sell this plan as supporting NASA priorities without detracting from budgets or long-term goals. Yet when it comes to the Obama administration’s latest asteroid mission proposal, it has not been able to adequately justify the rationale or budget for such a mission. The Science, Space and Technology Committee has held hearings on how best to continue progress in this area. The Russian meteor strike in April and recent close encounters with asteroids passing Earth have been stark reminders of the need to invest in space science. That’s how we put a human on the moon and landed rovers on Mars, all steps at reaching our ultimate goal of someday sending astronauts to our neighboring red planet. Throughout its history, our space program has set goals that required innovation and technologies yet to be developed, and the results have been astonishing. NASA is in the business of making the impossible possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |