A human mission to an asteroid. Credit: Lockheed Martin

Human Mission to an Asteroid: Why Should NASA Go?

Article Updated: 23 Aug , 2016

by

Imagine, if you can, the first time human eyes see Earth as a distant, pale blue dot. We’ve dreamed of deep space missions for centuries, and during the Apollo era, space enthusiasts assumed we’d surely be out there by now. Nevertheless, given the current state of faltering economies and potential budget cuts for NASA and other space agencies, sending humans beyond low Earth orbit might seem as impossible and unreachable as ever, if not more.

But NASA has been given a presidential directive to land astronauts on an asteroid by 2025, a mission that some say represents the most ambitious and audacious plan yet for the space agency.

“The human mission to an asteroid is an extremely important national goal,” Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart told Universe Today. “It will focus both NASA’s and the nation’s attention on we humans extending our capability beyond Earth/Moon space and into deep space. This is an essential capability in order to ultimately get to Mars, and a relatively short mission to a near-Earth asteroid is a logical first step in establishing a deep space human capability.”

And, Schweickart added, the excitement factor of such a mission would be off the charts. “Humans going into orbit around the Sun is pretty exciting!” said Schweickart, who piloted the lunar module during the Apollo 9 mission in 1969. “The Earth will be, for the first time to human eyes, a small blue dot.”

But not everyone agrees that an asteroid is the best destination for humans. Several of Schweickart’s Apollo compatriots, including Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan, favor returning to the Moon and are concerned that President Obama’s directive is a “grounding of JFK’s space legacy.”

Compounding the issue is that NASA has not yet decided on a launch system capable of reaching deep space, much less started to build such a rocket.

Can NASA really go to an asteroid?

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has called a human mission to an asteroid “the hardest thing we can do.”

Excited by the challenge, NASA chief technology officer Bobby Braun said, “This is a risky, challenging mission. It’s the kind of mission that engineers will eat up.”

A human mission to an asteroid is a feat of technical prowess that might equal or exceed what it took for the US to reach the Moon in the 1960’s. Remember scientists who thought the moon lander might disappear into a “fluffy” lunar surface? That reflects our current understanding of asteroids: we don’t know how different asteroids are put together (rubble pile or solid surface?) and we certainly aren’t sure how to orbit and land on one.

“One of the things we need to work on is figuring out what you actually do when you get to an asteroid,” said Josh Hopkins from Lockheed Martin, who is the Principal Investigator for Advanced Human Exploration Missions. Hopkins leads a team of engineers who develop plans and concepts for a variety of future human exploration missions, including visits to asteroids. He and his team proposed the so-called “Plymouth Rock” mission to an asteroid (which we’ll discuss more in a subsequent article), and have been working on the Orion Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), which would be a key component of a human mission to an asteroid.

“How do you fly in formation with an asteroid that has a very weak gravitational field, so that other perturbations such as slight pressure from the Sun would affect your orbit,” Hopkins mused, in an interview with Universe Today. “How do you interact with an asteroid, especially if you don’t know exactly what its surface texture and composition is? How do you design anchors or hand-holds or tools that can dig into the surface?”

Hopkins said he and his team have been working on developing some technologies that are fairly “agnostic” about the asteroid – things that will work on a wide variety of asteroids, rather than being specific to an iron type- or carbonaceous-type asteroid.

Hypothetical astronaut mission to an asteroid. Credit: NASA Human Exploration Framework Team

A weak gravity field means astronauts probably couldn’t walk on some asteroids – they might just float away, so ideas include installing handholds or using tethers, bungees, nets or jetpacks. In order for a spaceship to stay in orbit, astronauts might have to “harpoon” the asteroid and tether it to the ship.

Hopkins said many of those types of technologies are being developed for and will be demonstrated on NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission, the robotic sample return mission that NASA recently just selected for launch in 2016. “That mission is very complimentary to a future human mission to an asteroid,” Hopkins said.

Benefits

What benefits would a human asteroid mission provide?

“It would add to our body of knowledge about these interesting, and occasionally dangerous bodies,” said Schweickart, “and benefit our interest in protecting the Earth from asteroid impacts. So the human mission to a NEO is a very high priority in my personal list.”

Space shuttle astronaut Tom Jones says he thinks a mission to near Earth objects is a vital part of a planned human expansion into deep space. It would be an experiential stepping stone to Mars, and much more.

“Planning 6-month round trips to these ancient bodies will teach us a great deal about the early history of the solar system, how we can extract the water known to be present on certain asteroids, techniques for deflecting a future impact from an asteroid, and applying this deep space experience toward human Mars exploration,” Jones told Universe Today.

“Because an asteroid mission will not require a large, expensive lander, the cost might be comparable to a shorter, lunar mission, and NEO expeditions will certainly show we have set our sights beyond the Moon,” he said.

But Jones – and others – are concerned the Obama administration is not serious about such a mission and that the president’s rare mentions of a 2025 mission to a nearby asteroid has not led to firm NASA program plans, realistic milestones or adequate funding.

“I think 2025 is so far and so nebulous that this administration isn’t taking any responsibility for making it happen,” Jones said. “They are just going to let that slide off the table until somebody else takes over.”

Jones said he wouldn’t be surprised if nothing concrete happens with a NASA deep space mission until there is an administration change.

“The right course is to be more aggressive and say we want people out of Earth orbit in an Orion vehicle in 2020, so send them around the Moon to test out the ship, get them to the LaGrange points by 2020 and then you can start doing asteroid missions over the next few years,” Jones said. “Waiting for 2025 is just a political infinity in terms of making things happen.”

Jones said politics aside, it is certainly feasible to do all this by 2020. “That is nine years from now. My gosh, we are talking about getting a vehicle getting out of Earth orbit. If we can’t do that in nine years, we probably don’t have any hope of doing that in longer terms.”

Can NASA do such a mission? Will it happen? If so, how? Which asteroid should humans visit?

In a series of articles, we’ll take a closer look at the concepts and hurdles for a human mission to an asteroid and attempt to answer some of these questions.

Next: The Orion MPCV

For more reading: Tom Jones’ op-ed in Popular Mechanics, “50 Years After JFK’s Moon Declaration, We Need a New Course in Space”; More info on OSIRIS_REx,

, , , , , , ,



35 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    Cool! Let’s make it happen, we need something inspiring to get the Space Program back on it’s feet.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I think the target should be Eros. It’s near-Earth (ish), we know the surface is solid because a probe has already landed there, and it is big enough to have a usable amount of gravity.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I think the target should be Eros. It’s near-Earth (ish), we know the surface is solid because a probe has already landed there, and it is big enough to have a usable amount of gravity.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I have a negative and positive opinion of this. I can’t help but ponder that we might get the JWST cancelled, and NASA backed out of the LISA program, for this. I suppose I am more interested in the big picture and peering into the deepest of reaches of the universe than I am in poking around an asteroid. This will cost and considerably. The one benefit is that this might bring about techniques for servicing systems parked at the Lagrange points.

    LC

    • Another benefit from a manned mission is a better understanding of Near Earth Asteroid composition. That way we can determine and experiment techniques and technologies to safely alter their orbit. I’d rather have that, than a large city becoming Memorial Crater.

      • squidgeny says:

        I agree, but the loss of one city is negligible compared to what an impact could be capable of. At least we’d have enough advance warning to evacuate it (and as many valuables as possible) before consigning it to destruction. It may even be cheaper to rebuild a city than fund an ambitious mission to an asteroid that may not even work.

        But the science still needs to be done for when the big asteroids come – the ones big enough to give us an impact winter.

      • squidgeny says:

        I agree, but the loss of one city is negligible compared to what an impact could be capable of. At least we’d have enough advance warning to evacuate it (and as many valuables as possible) before consigning it to destruction. It may even be cheaper to rebuild a city than fund an ambitious mission to an asteroid that may not even work.

        But the science still needs to be done for when the big asteroids come – the ones big enough to give us an impact winter.

      • Anonymous says:

        I have to confess that I am somewhat underwhelmed by the threat of asteroid impacts. I am aware of course that they do happen, sometimes with huge consequences. However, I see little direct reason for concern.

        LC

    • Zachary Singer-Englar says:

      If we canceled some of the military expenditures that are behind schedule, over budget, and have little foreseeable use-case and need, like the x-43. maybe we’d be able to afford both JWST and an asteroid mission

  5. Baris Bicer says:

    I mean no offense to anyone, but in my mind it really doesn’t matter which agency or country manages to land humans on an asteroid/Mars/other space body. No matter who gets there first, science will have been done (unintentional Portal reference) that will benefit all of us equally.

    • squidgeny says:

      Certain aspects of politics are impeding the space program, yes, but not politics as a whole. Without politics, the space program wouldn’t be anything like what it is today (we probably wouldn’t have been to the Moon at all).

      In a better world the search for knowledge would be the only motivation to go to space, but we might as well celebrate whatever motivations are available, including politics and national pride. For those of us who care only for knowledge, it works out in our favour in the end.

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree that without the politics of the 1960’s we wouldn’t have a Space Program. But in the same mode of thought, if Kennedy hadn’t been killed we wouldn’t have gone to the moon either. To cancel the Moon mission after he died would have been unthinkable.
        But as soon as we landed, the country got bored, and then Congress starts screaming about budgets……
        We need to partner with as many wealthy countries as possible to get things done in a timely manner. We shouldn’t be doing it alone. China and Russia will get established on the Moon, so don’t you think we should be a part of that program? With all the minerals and Hydrogen 3 ect available, do we want someone monopolizing it like Middle East Oil?

      • squidgeny says:

        I’m not sure why Kennedy’s continued living would have led to the Moon landing being cancelled. He was as determined as anyone else to oppose the Soviets, who were gearing up for their own lunar landing. They already got the first man in space, I don’t think the USA would have let them have another victory.

        Anyway, using the Moon as a minerals resource is a pipe-dream at the moment. Even if it weren’t, it would be near-on impossible to “monopolize” – the Moon’s too big.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Wow this is incredible thinking by the engineers. Just reading whats being published in Universe today, the unknown path that needs to be threaded and the mystery of solving the hurdles is really beyond the capability of the ordinary. NASA needs to be funded handsomely with out any cuts in their budget with missions like this we are just breaking the starting point of our investigations of the outer space. God Speed.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Wow this is incredible thinking by the engineers. Just reading whats being published in Universe today, the unknown path that needs to be threaded and the mystery of solving the hurdles is really beyond the capability of the ordinary. NASA needs to be funded handsomely with out any cuts in their budget with missions like this we are just breaking the starting point of our investigations of the outer space. God Speed.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Wow this is incredible thinking by the engineers. Just reading whats being published in Universe today, the unknown path that needs to be threaded and the mystery of solving the hurdles is really beyond the capability of the ordinary. NASA needs to be funded handsomely with out any cuts in their budget with missions like this we are just breaking the starting point of our investigations of the outer space. God Speed.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Wow this is incredible thinking by the engineers. Just reading whats being published in Universe today, the unknown path that needs to be threaded and the mystery of solving the hurdles is really beyond the capability of the ordinary. NASA needs to be funded handsomely with out any cuts in their budget with missions like this we are just breaking the starting point of our investigations of the outer space. God Speed.

  10. Torbjörn Larsson says:

    astronauts might have to “harpoon” the asteroid and tether it to the ship.

    Everyone knows you use super glue to stick to the ceiling. “Harpoon”, my heat shield.

    It is a detour if planets are your only goal.

    But there are a lot more of small bodies in the solar system, and we need to learn this eventually. And we do step up the exploration on these bodies as on everything else.

    Also, a second step to Mars after an orbital round trip could be a Deimos/Phobos base.

    ———————–

    I am prematurely rushing into the series of “concepts and hurdles”, but it is too fun to abstain!

    These are the hurdles of the top of my memory:

    – The MPCV will go up unmanned earliest 2013, on an improved Delta IV-H. The LAS needed for manned flight is likely not finished by then.

    – The evolved SLS for heavy operations use is perhaps 21 years away.

    It could be ready to make an unmanned MPCV (seems like a theme) go round the Moon 2017. The manned Moon round trip would follow 2021. The first NEO version, SLS-6, may be ready 2025.

    And 2032 the Moon/Mars capable evolved SLS will be ready. It is pretty much the Ares-V under another name and with a lot less funding, after a Shuttle style compromise between what was wanted (new affordable technology; OK, cheaper and more powerful engines, and possibly liquid boosters, may be used*) and politically expedient (preserving the work force of the old expensive technology).

    Still, it is a doable, but with an absurdly tight timeline for NEOs (and Mars), no slips allowed. Using a Dragon/SpaceX combo would be so much more realistic, and cheaper.

    ————–
    * I like the idea of SpaceX providing those. Prrbthhh on the current solid candle rocket sticks! China started to use that rocket type before year 1000; technology that bore me to death.

  11. Torbjörn Larsson says:

    astronauts might have to “harpoon” the asteroid and tether it to the ship.

    Everyone knows you use super glue to stick to the ceiling. “Harpoon”, my heat shield.

    It is a detour if planets are your only goal.

    But there are a lot more of small bodies in the solar system, and we need to learn this eventually. And we do step up the exploration on these bodies as on everything else.

    Also, a second step to Mars after an orbital round trip could be a Deimos/Phobos base.

    ———————–

    I am prematurely rushing into the series of “concepts and hurdles”, but it is too fun to abstain!

    These are the hurdles of the top of my memory:

    – The MPCV will go up unmanned earliest 2013, on an improved Delta IV-H. The LAS needed for manned flight is likely not finished by then.

    – The evolved SLS for heavy operations use is perhaps 21 years away.

    It could be ready to make an unmanned MPCV (seems like a theme) go round the Moon 2017. The manned Moon round trip would follow 2021. The first NEO version, SLS-6, may be ready 2025.

    And 2032 the Moon/Mars capable evolved SLS will be ready. It is pretty much the Ares-V under another name and with a lot less funding, after a Shuttle style compromise between what was wanted (new affordable technology; OK, cheaper and more powerful engines, and possibly liquid boosters, may be used*) and politically expedient (preserving the work force of the old expensive technology).

    Still, it is a doable, but with an absurdly tight timeline for NEOs (and Mars), no slips allowed. Using a Dragon/SpaceX combo would be so much more realistic, and cheaper.

    ————–
    * I like the idea of SpaceX providing those. Prrbthhh on the current solid candle rocket sticks! China started to use that rocket type before year 1000; technology that bore me to death.

  12. Alfred Rudd says:

    This article was interesting right up until it became a political comment about the Obama Administration’s “will” to force Congress to fund such an adventure. Until we design a transportation system to reduce the time and human stress of deep space missions, let the robots do what they do best. Based on NASA” latest budget, the slow and steady pace will due just fine while breakthrough discoveries are being pondered, funded and tested.

    Congress, not the Obama Administration, funds NASA….PERIOD.

    Let’s start with the facts…….

    Jus Sayin’

    • squidgeny says:

      You’ll notice that the article doesn’t say anything directly about the Obama administration’s actions, it justs quotes people who have concerns about the Obama administration’s actions.

      If you have an issue, take it up with Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart (and his compatriots) and Space shuttle astronaut Tom Jones.

      • Alfred Rudd says:

        It’s up to the author to detirmine the political trajectory of an article.
        The author made the choice to inject politics into the article. The author could have gotten his point (lack of funding) across without playing the blame game.

        I see this type of “throwing rocks, at the Obama Administration, and hiding your hands” BS across the spectrum of space websites. You would think that people that write about “rocket science” might have a clue about how our government works. NASA, under the leadership of Gen. Bolden has charted a new direction for space exploration. They are BOLDLY, pardon the pun, trying to look beyond chemical rockets and fund more research into advanced propulsion systems.

        Congress is defunding NASA faster than the speed of sound. The Obama Administration is moving at light speed toward using private contractors for NEO transportion and using the savings to fund more research. Space travel is dangerous enough without some gloryhound president pushing science beyond safe margins for the sake of a “mission accomplished” political timeline.

        Please recall that, when first proposed and sold to the American people, the Shuttle program was supposed to be cheaper, with a fast turnaround time. Turns out it wasn’t cheaper by a long shot and didn’t fly nearly as often as when it was first proposed and funded…by CONGRESS. That “political pressure” is what the Challenger Report found to be the real cause of the deaths of our astronauts.

        So, yes, I do have an issue with anyone who would compromise saftey for political gain…or a science author who would wrongly inject presidential politics into the issue of space travel.This site is supposed to have higher standards (of proof) than this article offers. In addition, it’s misleading for the author to quote someone whose facts are wrong and not correct them, within the article they themselves authored.

        Jus Sayin’

  13. Anonymous says:

    Obama cancleing the previous moon mission is just screwing up our space program completely. Who ever advised him should be shot for obviously NOT thinking it through – He just made the statement and hasn’t said ANYTHING SINCE. It is not a real objective and Obama knows it.
    We need to test new technologies in the Earth-Moon system first, where we have a shot at “fixing” something that may go wrong in flight.
    The ONLY thing I wanted from Obama was for him to leave the Space initiative and NASA programs alone. Now we have to wait ten more years to straighten all this crap out because NOTHING is getting done.
    What an asswipe!!!!

    • TerryG says:

      re:

      “Who ever advised him should be shot for obviously NOT thinking it through…”

      It wasn’t one person. It was the 2009 “Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans” Committee. You can find their final report at the NASA web site here.

      Please take note that CxP was fast turning into a far bigger train wreck than the JWST is today. Whoever was in the W.H. had to put CxP out of it’s misery. You’re simply shooting the messenger.

      Customarily, one reads the report before sharing one’s conclusions. Try it.

      • Anonymous says:

        I firmly believe in Science first. That being said, I also fully understand the “politics” of the decision making process and all the crap that is involved. What “they” seem to have forgotten is the fact that we have not been beyond Earth orbit for 40 years and that there is still a learning curve. When Obama dismissed the Moon mission as “been there – done that” and “our grandfathers accomplished that” – I found those statements to be very disrespectful and almost ungrateful to what was accomplished in the 1960’s. Then to describe the mission as “orbit Mars – landing on a later mission” was not practical either…. That is the statement in particular what I meant by “whoever made that decision should be shot”. That is just a stupid plan. He wants Astronauts to endure what currently amounts to a 3 year adventure to view a planet we pretty much have already photographed and mapped – for the sake of orbiting it…….

        Forget the technology, We are a long, LONG way from going anywhere beyond Earth orbit.

        In today’s environment – This country is not capable of the commitment that was involved with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. We want results yesterday and do not have the attention span to get it done. The only way we could devote whole heartedly to a Manned mission to the Moon or Mars is if someone discovered actual life or maybe Gold.

        It makes more sense right now to get Mars and asteroid sample missions to bring samples back. That, at least, would shut up the people saying manned is too expensive and dangerous. Let’s at least keep the SCIENCE moving in a positive direction until we figure out what it is we want to accomplish, AND what we can afford to do. They are opposite ends of the spectrum. Congress will never commit to the likes of the 1960’s programs.

      • Anonymous says:

        I firmly believe in Science first. That being said, I also fully understand the “politics” of the decision making process and all the crap that is involved. What “they” seem to have forgotten is the fact that we have not been beyond Earth orbit for 40 years and that there is still a learning curve. When Obama dismissed the Moon mission as “been there – done that” and “our grandfathers accomplished that” – I found those statements to be very disrespectful and almost ungrateful to what was accomplished in the 1960’s. Then to describe the mission as “orbit Mars – landing on a later mission” was not practical either…. That is the statement in particular what I meant by “whoever made that decision should be shot”. That is just a stupid plan. He wants Astronauts to endure what currently amounts to a 3 year adventure to view a planet we pretty much have already photographed and mapped – for the sake of orbiting it…….

        Forget the technology, We are a long, LONG way from going anywhere beyond Earth orbit.

        In today’s environment – This country is not capable of the commitment that was involved with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. We want results yesterday and do not have the attention span to get it done. The only way we could devote whole heartedly to a Manned mission to the Moon or Mars is if someone discovered actual life or maybe Gold.

        It makes more sense right now to get Mars and asteroid sample missions to bring samples back. That, at least, would shut up the people saying manned is too expensive and dangerous. Let’s at least keep the SCIENCE moving in a positive direction until we figure out what it is we want to accomplish, AND what we can afford to do. They are opposite ends of the spectrum. Congress will never commit to the likes of the 1960’s programs.

  14. Anonymous says:

    If we are truly interested in a firmly footed scientific presence in space, a return to the moon with the resources to do good science and provide extended habitation is the most obviious answer. We have barely begun to scratch the surface there. We can send robotic devices to asteroids and Mars. We are only talking about an orbital trip to Mars in 2035, which underscores the enormous problems associated with transporting humans there and providing them with food, water, oxygen and a means to land and take off. We already have orbiting craft around Mars which can be improved and provide enormous amonts of information. I respect Obama, but the plans as stated seem to me what you would expect of a Constitutional Law professor trying to make engineering decisions. Going to Mars is not a drive across town. China is not going to send the Beijing marching band there any time soon. Replacing the shuttle with private craft is a good idea and the Boeing proposal to use the Atlas 5 was welcome. But let’s get real and think about the priorities here, quit setting artificial deadlines and quit treating Mars as if it was a trip to the beach. We need years, probably decades, of development to be able to do that. Experience and infrastructure on the moon would be invaluable and seems so obvious I’m surprised there is any debate. I truly hopoe we get our heads screwed on straight.
    Paul

  15. Anonymous says:

    I doubt that the public would like that. It is as boring as hell.
    People cannot associate to something they cannot see. It is an invisible rock for them with a name they never hear off I doubt that many poems and songs are written about an asteroid.

    At leas with the ISS they can see it moving over their heads, but this rock?

  16. brobof says:

    “The right course is to be more aggressive… a political infinity in terms of making things happen.”
    With the greatest of respect President Obama was outlining the Flexible Path strategy and as an address to the Nation who would probably not grasp the significance of the L1 point as “Gateway” to everywhere else. An asteroid by 2025/6 i.e. 1999 AO10 is an attention grabber as would be Phobos. The other candidates available in the next three decades (and there are not too many of them) …are rather small bodies!

  17. We have the technology to do a lot more today, but “man” is way too concerned with profit, even thought science always paves the way to new technologies and therefore benefits… while manned and robotic missions help us to gain more knowledge through practical use of technology we learn to excel… that’s what we are good at: improving through experience, both positive and negative!

  18. Anonymous says:

    What I meant by the monopoly on the moon is whoever establishes a permanent “presence” on the moon will have an un-declared monopoly on what happens there. Everybody else will have to coordinate and cooperate all future aspects of Human Moon adventures with that country.
    As far as Kennedy goes, it wasn’t until 4 or 5 years after his death that we started to TRULY out do the Soviet Space Program. After the Apollo 1 disaster I truly believe his memory kept it from being canceled. I’m only saying that his memory kept that National Dream alive for much longer than it might have.
    We all know that Americans have the attention span of a gnat. By 1966 we may have got bored with getting our asses kicked by Russian achievements and said the hell with it. Certainly it was considered after losing 3 Astronauts. Congress gets involved about the money- blah blah blah…..

  19. Thomas Houck says:

    “Humans going into orbit around the Sun is pretty exciting!” said Schweickart. Hey Rusty, I’ve been in orbit around the Sun for my whole life…it’s no big deal really.

  20. Anonymous says:

    How about a real project. Go out to the asteroid belt and slowly haul in a small
    asteroid and park it at either the L2 or L5 points in the earth moon system.
    Then develop it as a habitat. Of course a lot of care will be needed moving it.

    • WaxyMary says:

      The project you suggest is currently beyond our abilities –by our, I mean the entire community of Earth, but it is a grand idea for a project.

      The simplest method of achieving this project’s goal is at least somewhere to start in our development of the solar system. Those resources we will need outside the gravity well of Earth are, well, outside the well of Earth’s gravity, even if they are rather difficult to grasp at the present time.

      Mary

  21. Marcel Williams says:

    A manned mission to a NEO asteroid would be a huge waste of NASA’s limited budget.

    1. You can visit a lot more asteroids and retrieve a lot more material easier and a lot cheaper with robotic vehicles

    2. Its simpler and a lot more exciting for a manned mission to visit the moons of Mars than to visit an asteroid

    3. A manned asteroid journey would still require several hundred tonnes of mass shielding to protect the human brain from serious damage from several months of heavy nuclei bombardment. I see no such shielding from the Lockheed scenario!

    4. Polls show that most Americans would prefer that we focus on establishing a base on the Moon rather than a stunt like visiting an asteroid

Comments are closed.