Mars Mission: Obama Wants an Asteroid. Republicans Want the Moon.

Washington is backseat-driving NASA’s trip to Mars.

An artist's concept of what asteroid exploration might look like.
National Journal
Alex Brown
Add to Briefcase
Alex Brown
July 2, 2014, 3:59 p.m.

Wash­ing­ton’s par­tis­an di­vide is spread­ing all the way to space.

Pres­id­ent Obama and many Re­pub­lic­ans agree that NASA should pur­sue a mis­sion to Mars. What they can’t agree on, however, is the best route to get there.

Spe­cific­ally, the parties are di­vided over which space rock to use for a way­po­int on the Mars mis­sion.

Some Re­pub­lic­ans — most fam­ously Newt Gin­grich but also a large pas­sel of House law­makers — see the moon as the most lo­gic­al way­po­int. A lun­ar base, they say, would al­low NASA to test land­ing tech­no­lo­gies and sur­face op­er­a­tions. It would also al­low as­tro­nauts to launch hu­man­kind’s first at­tempts to util­ize ex­tra-Earth re­sources, in­clud­ing ex­tract­ing wa­ter from the moon’s dust.

Obama and NASA’s cur­rent lead­er­ship, however, fa­vor a fur­ther for­ay in­to the fi­nal fron­ti­er: cap­tur­ing, re­dir­ect­ing, and ex­plor­ing an as­ter­oid. To do so, they want the space agency to in­vest in sol­ar propul­sion en­gines, tech­no­logy that is also a pre­requis­ite for a long-dis­tance Mars mis­sion. While the Mars as­tro­nauts them­selves will travel on a fuel-powered ship, the re­sup­ply craft they’ll meet along the way will use the slower but more cost-ef­fect­ive sol­ar power.

The battle between the com­pet­ing vis­ions plays out in an­nu­al battles over NASA’s budget, where the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­quests fund­ing for its goals, and Re­pub­lic­ans — par­tic­u­larly in the GOP-con­trolled House — push back. And the com­pet­i­tion is made all the more in­tense as the fund­ing pool shrinks: NASA’s fund­ing has di­min­ished by more than a bil­lion dol­lars since 2010 — more than 7 per­cent of a budget that then totaled $18.7 bil­lion.

What every­one agrees on is that without con­sensus, neither plan will work. The Mars plan, said a Na­tion­al Re­search Coun­cil re­port earli­er this month, can­not suc­ceed “without a sus­tained com­mit­ment on the part of those who gov­ern the na­tion — a com­mit­ment that does not change dir­ec­tion with suc­ceed­ing elect­or­al cycles. Those branches of gov­ern­ment — ex­ec­ut­ive and le­gis­lat­ive — re­spons­ible for NASA’s fund­ing and guid­ance are there­fore crit­ic­al en­a­blers of the na­tion’s in­vest­ment and achieve­ments in hu­man space­flight.”

For now, at least, the unity ap­pears far from likely. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Re­pub­lic­an who chairs the House Sci­ence Com­mit­tee, calls the as­ter­oid mis­sion “un­in­spir­ing.”

Mean­while, Obama and NASA chief Charles Bolden have ac­cused Con­gress of whin­ing about NASA’s lack of am­bi­tion while sim­ul­tan­eously cut­ting its budget. “We can only do so many things,” Bolden said last year.

Obama cited un­der­fund­ing when he scrapped the Bush-pro­posed moon mis­sion in 2010, and NASA’s budget has de­clined since. The moon mis­sion was ex­pec­ted to cost around $100 bil­lion ($10 bil­lion of which was already spent when the pro­gram closed down). The as­ter­oid plan is es­tim­ated at less than $3 bil­lion.

Louis Fried­man, a founder of the Plan­et­ary So­ci­ety, says the GOP stance is hy­po­crit­ic­al. “I don’t think there’s an iota of in­dic­a­tion [that fund­ing would be raised with a re­newed moon fo­cus]. There are people who will talk about that idea.”¦ The idea of ac­tu­ally ap­pro­pri­at­ing ex­tra money, we haven’t seen any­thing like that.”

He said op­pos­i­tion to the as­ter­oid plan is based on re­flex­ive dis­agree­ment with everything Obama pro­poses, rather than con­sidered, tech­nic­al reas­ons. “The in­dustry and NASA are pretty much be­hind the as­ter­oid re­dir­ect,” Fried­man said.

John Logs­don, a former dir­ect­or of George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity’s Space Policy In­sti­tute, doesn’t see it that way. “There are plenty of Demo­crats not in the White House who think it makes sense to go back to the moon,” he said. “[But] every­body at NASA has to sa­lute and say, ‘Yes in­deed.’ “

Logs­don doesn’t dis­count the as­ter­oid plan, but he says the ad­min­is­tra­tion was too quick to write off a re­turn to the moon. “If go­ing back to the moon is ruled out, then the [as­ter­oid re­dir­ect mis­sion] be­comes the best of all pos­sible mis­sions,” he said. “The as­ter­oid re­dir­ect is an in­geni­ous in­ven­tion of something that’s worth do­ing now that we’re not go­ing to the moon.”

So what does NASA stand to gain from each mis­sion? In simple terms, the lun­ar plan would give as­tro­nauts and sci­ent­ists ex­per­i­ence op­er­at­ing on a for­eign sur­face. The as­ter­oid mis­sion would help en­gin­eers de­vel­op tech­no­logy for long-range space­flight.

Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Steven Palazzo, who chairs the Space Sub­com­mit­tee, per­haps best en­cap­su­lated the lun­ar view when he called the moon a “train­ing ground for ven­tur­ing fur­ther in­to the sol­ar sys­tem.” As­ter­oid-hunt­ing, he said, is less a way­po­int to Mars than a “de­tour.”

Of course, there’s also what Fried­man refers to as the “high-ground men­tal­ity” — that Amer­ica shouldn’t cede the lun­ar dom­in­ance it’s held since 1969. While oth­er na­tions race to rep­lic­ate Neil Arm­strong’s feat, the U.S. should main­tain a hu­man pres­ence on the moon, even if it yields no real stra­tegic ad­vant­age.

Logs­don, on the oth­er hand, thinks the lo­gic of a moon base ac­tu­ally is stra­tegic — oth­er­wise no one else would be try­ing to go there. “I frankly don’t think any­one would be push­ing as­ter­oid re­dir­ect if the U.S. em­braced a re­turn to the moon,” he said. “The rest of the world is fo­cused on go­ing to the moon. We’re the only coun­try that’s out of sync with that.”

Amer­ica’s com­pet­it­ive streak isn’t the only reas­on to vis­it our plan­et’s closest neigh­bor. For some, in­clud­ing former NASA Ad­min­is­trat­or Mi­chael Griffin, the reas­on­ing is more ba­sic: sur­viv­al. “In the long run a single-plan­et spe­cies will not sur­vive,” he said, and the soon­er we es­tab­lish out­posts else­where the bet­ter.

While pro-as­ter­oid folks point to cost com­par­is­ons, lun­ar ad­voc­ates say their plan would in­volve a series of mis­sions — rather than a single voy­age — so fund­ing ar­gu­ments are un­fair.

Still, the dis­par­ity in cost is stark. And sup­port­ers of Obama’s plan say the tech­nic­al ad­vant­ages are just as good.

The as­tro­nauts who go to Mars will use rock­et power to move their craft to­ward the Red Plan­et. But with a mis­sion that could take about three years round-trip, they’ll need to re­stock their sup­plies along the way.

Years in ad­vance, NASA will shoot off ships loaded with sup­plies for the Mars-bound (and later Earth-bound) as­tro­nauts. Those craft will use sol­ar-elec­tric propul­sion, a cheap but slow-mov­ing way to move ob­jects around in space.

That’s where the as­ter­oid mis­sion comes in. The first stage of the plan in­volves a ro­bot ship that will spend about four years trav­el­ing to an as­ter­oid. That ship will rely on sol­ar-elec­tric propul­sion, a cru­cial test for the tech­no­logy and a big step in pre­par­ing it for ex­pan­ded use in the Mars mis­sion.

After the un­manned ship cap­tures the as­ter­oid, it will drag it in­to lun­ar or­bit, where as­tro­nauts can land on and in­spect it. Fried­man points out that the as­ter­oid’s prox­im­ity to the moon could sup­port some of the lun­ar sci­ence that moon base ad­voc­ates have called for — without the “de­tour” of build­ing in­fra­struc­ture there (yes, both sides use that word to de­scribe the com­pet­ing plan).

While politi­cians ar­gue, NASA is mov­ing for­ward with the as­ter­oid re­dir­ect plan — but without any as­sur­ance of sup­port from Con­gress. And both sides agree that’s not likely to change. “What I think will hap­pen is that we’ll just muddle along with a plan that tries to do too much with too little money and pro­duces no be­ne­fits ex­cept gov­ern­ment jobs,” Logs­don said.

And fu­ture NASA budgets, like cur­rent ones, are likely to be a “mish­mash of vari­ous com­pet­ing in­terests,” Fried­man said.

What We're Following See More »
FCC Tightens Internet Privacy Standards
11 hours ago

Along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted to tighten privacy standards for Internet service providers. "The regulations will require providers to receive explicit customer consent before using an individual’s web browsing or app usage history for marketing purposes. The broadband industry fought to keep that obligation out of the rules."

Obama Commutes Another 98 Sentences
11 hours ago

President Obama commuted the sentences of another 98 drug offenders on Thursday. Most of the convicts were charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs or possession with intent to distribute. Many of the sentences were commuted to expire next year, but some will run longer. Others are required to enroll in residential drug treatment as a condition of their release.

Clinton Up 9 in USA Today Poll; Up 3 According to Fox
16 hours ago

A new USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds Clinton leads Trump by 9 points nationwide, 47% to 38%. A Fox News national poll has Clinton up just three points, 44% to 41% over Trump.

Cruz: Eight Justices Could Be an Ongoing Situation
18 hours ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

DNC Sues RNC Over Trump’s Rigged Vote Comments
21 hours ago

The Democratic National Committee sued the Republican National Committee in U.S. District Court in New Jersey for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged." The DNC claims "that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.