Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · BILL · 115th Congress · S. 442 (Considered and Passed Senate) — To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes. · Sec. 434

Sec. 434. Asteroid robotic redirect mission

557 words·~3 min read·/bill/115/s/442/cps/section-434

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress makes the following findings: NASA initially estimated that the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission would launch in December 2020 and cost no more than $1,250,000,000, excluding launch and operations. On July 15, 2016, NASA conducted its Key Decision Point–B review of the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission or approval for Phase B in mission formulation. During the Key Decision Point–B review, NASA estimated that costs have grown to $1,400,000,000 excluding launch and operations for a launch in December 2021 and the agency must evaluate whether to accept the increase or reduce the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission’s scope to stay within the cost cap set by the Administrator.
In April 2015, the NASA Advisory Council— issued a finding that— high-performance solar electric propulsion will likely be an important part of an architecture to send humans to Mars; and maneuvering a large test mass is not necessary to provide a valid in-space test of a new solar electric propulsion stage; determined that a solar electric propulsion mission will contribute more directly to the goal of sending humans to Mars if the mission is focused entirely on development and validation of the solar electric propulsion stage; and determined that other possible motivations for acquiring and maneuvering a boulder, such as asteroid science and planetary defense, do not have value commensurate with their probable cost.
The Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission is competing for resources with other critical exploration development programs, including the Space Launch System, Orion, commercial crew, and a habitation module. In 2014, the NASA Advisory Council recommended that NASA conduct an independent cost and technical assessment of the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission. In 2015, the NASA Advisory Council recommended that NASA preserve the following key objectives if the program needed to be descoped:
Development of high power solar electric propulsion. Ability to maneuver in a low gravity environment in deep space. In January 2015 and July 2015, the NASA Advisory Council expressed its concern to NASA about the potential for growing costs for the program and highlighted that choices would need to be made about the program’s content. It is the sense of Congress that— the technological and scientific goals of the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission have not been demonstrated to Congress to be commensurate with the cost; and alternative missions may provide a more cost effective and scientifically beneficial means to demonstrate the technologies needed for a human mission to Mars that would otherwise be demonstrated by the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall— conduct an evaluation of— alternative approaches to the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission for demonstrating the technologies and capabilities needed for a human mission to Mars that would otherwise be demonstrated by the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission; the scientific and technical benefits of the alternative approaches under subparagraph
(A)to future human space exploration compared to scientific and technical benefits of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission; the commercial benefits of the alternative approaches identified in subparagraph (A), including the impact on the development of domestic solar electric propulsion technology to bolster United States competitiveness in the global marketplace; and a comparison of the estimated costs of the alternative approaches identified in subparagraph (A); and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the evaluation under paragraph (1), including any recommendations.
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.