It’s moons all the way up.
So, NASA wants to kidnap an asteroid and place it in orbit around the Moon for exploratory purposes.
James Cameron seems to think so.
Is it like what happened to China? 
I didn’t understand the confusion until I read the second quote. I meant, if we want to understand asteroids, why not haul it all the way to Earth and study it, on the ground. Not have it orbiting. If we want to study something orbiting the moon, why do we have to go get a space rock? Why not just use one of the rocks we have here?
And now that I said that out loud, I suppose it would make more sense to be able to study a real asteroid so that we could compare it to other real ones. I would assume they would do all kinds of testing on it on the way back so they would have some real data to work with.
The International Space Station is actually in a very poor orbital inclination to receive from or send to objects on an interplanetary track. The ISS also has no specific facilities for investigating or processing an asteroid, and of course any debris coming off of the asteroid might eventually threaten the station (though the bigger risk is launch system debris in a crossing or eccentric orbit).
As for the reasons for doing this, not only would it provide a wealth of knowledge about the composition of asteroids (which we currently only infer from meteorie remains), but it also provides a basis for developing the technology to construct an infrastructure for asteroid exploitation (e.g. mining and in-situ propellant manufacture). This is currently beyond our existing capability, and the cost of developing this is beyond any reasonable expectation of return on investment, but once the basic processes and technology have been developed it may be far more appealing, especially in the area of rare earth materials that are costly and polluting to extract terrestrially. Some metals, such as copper, tin, and tungsten, may one day become more profitable to develop from asteroids than mining or recovery from terrestrial sources, though the real advantage of asteroid exploitation is to support native manufacture in the orbital/interplanetary environment versus the cost of hauling up manufactured goods from the surface of the Earth.
This also offers practical experience at intercepting asteroids, which may prove useful in dealing with celestial threats. Although we are probably not going to be able to just throw a bag around a truly threatening (>1 km diameter) asteroid and haul it into a safe trajectory, we can at least gain a working knowledge of the difficulty in planning and executing an intercept, as well as validating models for the composition and dynamic behavior of asteroids (e.g. will they remain solid or break up under loads).
At any rate, this is certainly a more scientifically and technically advantageous mission than sending people to the ISS to watch plants grow upside-down or to Mars to install icons of national pride. At US$2.6B (even assuming cost growth factor of 2.5 that most recent missions have seen) it is a bargin for the potential gains. The article doesn’t indicate which center would (potentially) run the mission. My guess would be Goddard or maybe Ames, but my preference (based upon personal experience and not just a little prejudice) would be JPL, which has the best record of executing exploratory missions within budget.
Stranger
This is a pittance compred to the money wasted on any number of useless programs or gratuitous entertainments. We’re always going to have some kind of ongoing crisis or famine or whatnot on Planet Earth, most of which are created either by inadequate foresight, political chicanery, or a combination of both. For what it costs a single candidate to run for US president or put on a Super Bowl game, we could get a long way toward eradicating a major disease like poliomyelitis or providing fresh potable water for the entire continent of Africa, and yet we don’t, purely out of gross indolence and a lack of basic goodwill for people who don’t look like us.
However, this mission (and others like it) could advance fundamental knowledge of how the solar system was formed and the relative composition as well as practical experience in handling extra-terrestrial resources and threats. This isn’t some flag waving national popularity contest or abstract mission to look at extragalactic compositions (which can still be interesting and valuable in their own ways); this offers very valuable and practical experience on realistic future applications in space that could potentially benefit all of mankind, just as current Earth observation and telecommunication satellites currently do, and the price tag scarcely even justifies an individual line item in the US budget.
Stranger
It’s not like the entire $2.6 billion disappears when the thing is launched, either. It goes into the pockets of the scientists, engineers, manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, etc.
“If you want to see 99942 Apophis again, please leave $1,000,000,000 in small unmarked bills under Yogi rock on Mars by 00:00 UTC Tuesday night. Do not contact the police or the asteroid gets it. (Ever see Armageddon?)”
True, and it also sustains a technical base (design and manufacturing for launch and space vehicles) that is currently diminishing in the absence of substantial military interest in space. (More accurately, the military and intelligence agencies are still interested in space, but rather than leading development they are turning toward commercial industry to provide off-the-shelf solutions as a cost saving measure.)
For anyone who doesn’t think there is a need to maintain this base and that this is just subsidizing a bunch of geeks with Star Trek fantasies, appreciate the fact that the reason we have worldwide access to news and communication, more accurate forecasting of major weather events, Global Positioning System aided navigation, improved climate observation and modeling, modern IC microcomputer and data storage systems, and other capabilities that significantly contribute to the quality of life for everyday citizens is because a bunch of guys with crew cuts and gruff manners wanted to show up another bunch of guys with crew cuts and gruff manners. The consequence–the modern space surveillance, navigation, and telecommunications industries–has created enormous economic value, notwithstanding the basic science knowledge that has been available because of it.
Stranger
Didn’t we have a thread asking if moons could have their own moons, and the conclusion was that they’d be unstable? Somehow I can’t find that thread right now.
Of course, the way to find a thread is to ask about it first:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15399699
The Keck Institute proposed this. I note that the Keck Observatory is located, like all good Bond villain lairs, atop a live volcano.