Excellent article - head and shoulders better than any I've read on the subject.
Too bad it's apparently not being read by some of the posters critically but being reacted to. And one should read more of the supporting materials before responding with predictable "knee jerk" agendas. If the critical posts above carefully examine the article that was carefully written, they'll find it addresses the issues they bring up. I find that very annoying.
As I see it, the reason for this mission being separated from a SLS EM-2 (or other) is manifold - there are many political contradictions involved here that get dealt with all in one. That is the overriding consideration, and it's a smart one.
Few of you will agree with the reason SLS is being built - to provide a "credible threat" of doing human exploration beyond LEO such that at any time, any future "space race" that might be attempted, means that the US could adapt and respond in time to matter. We'll ignore the practical (and political) aspects that limit this pragmatism of which I have considerable doubt. Realize SLS does not have to be "used" but "useful". It actually helps that it is expensive, huge, and difficult to manage ... because only China and Russia would ever dare do something like it, and only then at a extreme cost.
The key problem with the prior mission involving SLS was that it confused a real exploration and capability development with this agenda, which must remain "pure" for political reasons. Among them is the ability to leave unresolved the deployment of SLS with its huge operational cost burdens. Remember, SLS is a strategic threat, not a tactical/operational capability.
In the past, such impurities were allowed. But now the fear is diversion of resources in
any form such that the agenda is potentially compelled in
any fashion. This is also why things appear so ridiculously impractical, and why so much antagonism results among those in these community - they have little to agree with unless its all one way.
We are moving into a more precarious world given recent events, and certain national security issues require a different posture than before. It is best to keep a tight definition on roles and need, irrespective of minor agendas being battled for by advocates.
Sooner or later you'll need to point SLS/Orion at something, and do some real science. Original EM-1/2 are embarrassing missions for NASA and are "impure" because of the contradictions that the guardians of purity have created for themselves.
This smart move allows them to exit the corner they've painted themselves into. Also, it means extending the beginnings of a defense capability started with the Deep Impact and Stardust missions as a US only research and development mission, albeit small scale. It also exposes the competitive aspect of all the players to respond, which leverage’s US economic and technological skills effectively.
Don't get distracted by the "noise" here - that a 100 meter asteroid isn't a 3,476,000 meter Moon. Listen to the "signal" - total control, access both human and robotic, by commercial industry and government science/military/other. Cheap by the standards of per square meter or ton of exploration.
Do we really know everything about
Morro Rock? Can we toss it around at kilometers/sec? Do we understand the geology, formation, volatiles, metals, etc of it?
Answer: No