Draft NASA Funding Bill Cancels Asteroid Mission For Return To the Moon

MarkWhittington writes "A draft version of the 2013 NASA Authorization Bill nixes any funding for President Obama's asteroid retrieval mission and instead directs NASA to return astronauts to the lunar surface as soon as possible, funding of course permitted. The NASA bill is currently working its way through the House Science Committee. Thus far the Senate has not taken up NASA authorization. However the cancellation of the asteroid retrieval mission and an insistence on returning to the moon, which both President Obama and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden have opposed, would place Congress on a collision course with the White House should that version of the bill be passed by both houses of Congress."

Oink oink oink

[alen]

Pork barrel for the 21st century
I'm sure the work will be spread out among every important congress person's districts

NASA's mission

[It doesn't come easy]

Not sure how any serious engineer or scientist works at NASA these days. NASA's mission changes quarterly (or more frequently), subject to political whim. I think our only real hope in the practical exploration of space lies with commercial enterprise. Which, truthfully, isn't that bad a deal. Of course, we still don't have any viable commercial enterprise working yet (lots of startups but nothing concrete at this point). A friend of mine is a scientist who worked at NASA for 12 years. He bailed about 10 years ago because of the political interference and now works at a university on the west coast. Smart man.

If people had their priorities straight...

[kk49]

We would do both...

This is not the way

[ildon]

Scientific missions should not be determined by political whims.

Re:The important word is "should"

[dpilot]

It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.

Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy. It wasn't that long ago that the Republicans clearly stated that there was no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution. Now because it's against Obama, they're thumping the privacy tub really hard. (Though I'll bet they still don't think any right to privacy applies to gay conduct, even in one's own home.)

But unfortunately I've lost sufficient faith to think that that's what he's doing, The "mini-me" cartoon seems scarily accurate, and makes today's Republican Congress-critters seem all the more buffoon-ish.

Re:The important word is "should"

[deadhammer]

Asteroid capture and mining is potentially lucrative but completely unknown in terms of economy, safety, proper technique, etc. Generally what governments excel at is exploration of unknowns. You think there would BE private space flights and planned space stations if NASA and the USSR hadn't gone up first to see if, oh, people could even survive in zero-G, let alone get up there and back? Is it inefficient? Sure. But governments can take risks that private agencies, with shareholders that demand risk prevention, can't. Once the maps have been made, so to speak, then you can get the massive influx of private sector enterprise.

In other words, it's an investment.

Re:The important word is "should"

[LifesABeach]

Putting money on Moon related projects has helped everyone, and accelerated human achievement better than any program that uses money to subsidize greed.

Re:The important word is "should"

[dpilot]

If you've followed Jon Stewart more, you'd know that he's painfully aware of this. On several occasions he has rather angrily taken the mainstream media to task, primarily with the tune, "I'm a comedian, why aren't YOU covering this stuff the way it ought to be!"

Jon Stewart is the Court Jester of our day. (Which is a bit more than one might think, if you look up more of the role of the Court Jester in medieval times.)