Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

Posted by samzenpus on from the identify-the-problem dept.

MarkWhittington writes Professor Richard Binzel published a commentary in the journal Nature that called for two things. He proposed that NASA cancel the Asteroid Redirect Mission currently planned for the early 2020s. Instead, he would like the asteroid survey mandated by the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act of 2005, part of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, funded at $200 million a year. Currently NASA funds the survey at $20 million a year, considered inadequate to complete the identification of 90 percent of hazardous near-Earth objects 140 meters or greater by 2020 as mandated by the law.

4 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. But where are the potentional profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's no profit to be made on determining which asteroids may or may not kill us all. There IS profit to be made on mining asteroids.

    It's hard to get an idea pushed forward if you can't show people the money.

    1. Re:But where are the potentional profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "There IS profit to be made on mining asteroids."

      That's absolutely ludicrous. Go find out the spot price for mineral ore that's available by the tons right here on Earth.

      Tell me how you intend to make a *profit* by going into space with massive amounts of technology and resources???

      To get the same things we already have here?

    2. Re:But where are the potentional profits? by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Informative

      Water on Earth is cheap and plentiful

      Water in Earth orbit on the other hand is neither.

  2. Completely Missed the Point by Egg+Sniper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps intentionally, the blurb above completely ignores that Prof. Biznel's entire point is that we should be going after the asteroids that already pass close by. He wants us to play with these things, he just thinks it's a waste of money to send a probe far away to grab one when we could much more cheaply grab one that's already passing through. In order to have a decent chance of planning such a mission, we need to have a more complete survey of the asteroids that do pass close by which, he mentions, is already mandated by law (and we're not going to reach that goal at current spending levels).