E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
Artwork from the 1970s shows an orbital fuel depot for outward-bound spaceships.
Two years ago, retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine headed up a commission that led the White House to scrap NASA's "unexecutable" back-to-the-moon program and focus instead on a step-by-step path to send humans beyond Earth orbit, to an asteroid by 2025, and to the environs of Mars by the 2030s.
Now NASA is nearing the end of the shuttle program, gearing up to mark Thursday's 50th anniversary of U.S. human spaceflight ... and dealing with an uncertain future for human spaceflight. Augustine says NASA is mostly following the short-term prescription he and his colleagues have laid out, but he worries that NASA's long-term future could be a case of deja vu all over again.
In an interview, Augustine told me that NASA could once again face a situation where its budget doesn't match the task it's been given. The current year's $18.45 billion budget is a bit less than last year's, and includes $3 billion for work on a heavy-lift rocket and a spaceship that could eventually go beyond Earth orbit.
NASA
Norman Augustine was chairman of the White House's Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee in 2009.
"I think with regard to this year's budget, the match is reasonable," Augustine said. "But if we're to have a program of the type that we described as attractive in the report that we put out, there's not enough money in the out years to do it. The question is whether we'll add that money in the out years or not. If we don't have it, then we're probably pursuing the wrong program. If we add the money, then this will be the right program, in my judgment."
What does he think it will take?
"Unless that money is increased by about $3 billion a year, real dollars, over what it was at the time we did our study, then this whole thing is very tenuous," he said. "But if that funding is made available ... the path we're on so far is very consistent with what I think most of us would see as a sensible program."
He said NASA already had many of the pieces in place for a sensible space program: The agency is supporting the development of commercial spaceships to service the International Space Station, and that effort is coming along "better than I expected," Augustine said. There'll still be a gap of several years after the shuttle program, during which NASA will have to rely on the Russians to send U.S. astronauts to the space station. But Augustine sees that as unavoidable at this point. NASA just couldn't afford working on the next generation of beyond-orbit spacecraft at the same time it was operating the shuttle program, he said.
Augustine acknowledges that not everyone in the space community agrees with him.
"Some of the veterans and some of my most admired friends — Neil Armstrong, for instance — simply don't think it's a good idea," he said. "Other astronauts do think it's a good idea. But the question is, what are the real choices we have? NASA has a certain amount of money, and we could spend that money transporting astronauts into low Earth orbit, basically forever, or we could turn that mission over to somebody else and let NASA use its money and its talents where I think it should be spent — and that is doing more demanding and more exciting things that the public would like to support, mainly exploring and science. NASA has just got to unload the trucking business, frankly."
Why do it at all?
"Many of the justifications that have been given in the past, I would not agree with. We know that there's a huge positive impact on the economy, and we develop new products ... but I believe these things alone don't justify the human spaceflight program," Augustine said. "The only way you can fully justify the human spaceflight program is in the form of intangibles. That is, great nations do great things. President Kennedy said great nations like to explore. If we don't do these things, others will. Do we want to be a part of it, or do we want to stand back and watch?"
He noted that Americans are generally supportive of the space program, particularly when they find out that it costs roughly 15 cents per person per day. "But one of the problems with the space program is that we need some exciting new things," he said. "The previous plan was 'send us a number of billions of dollars and in 25 years we'll go back to the moon.' That really doesn't inspire anybody."
So what does Augustine think would inspire the public? What's his vision for the next decade or two?
"The ultimate goal — and it depends mostly on money, a little bit on science but mostly on money — would be to go to Mars and have a human landing on Mars," he said. "In the interim, it's very clear that we could dock with an asteroid, we could go to one of the Lagrangian points, we could go to [the Martian moons] Phobos or Deimos, we could circumnavigate Mars, we could orbit Mars. I think there's this whole series of steps we could take, that would let us have some accomplishments along the way. It might include actually going back to the moon, as a sort of way station to go to Mars, but I don't think going back to the moon is an end in itself anymore."
... And one more thing:
"It's my belief that we will eventually have widespread tourism into orbit. ... It's kind of like airlines were in the '30s. They used to be like launch vehicles companies are today. In the '30s, of course, the government guaranteed that airlines could haul the mail and get contracts. Well, if the government will give contracts to these firms, and guarantee to haul fuel into low Earth orbit, put fueling stations up there and so on, I think they can make a business out of this. I think there'll be a commercial business one day — maybe not in my lifetime, but one day not all that far away where tourism will be very prominent."
Is that a vision worth an extra $3 billion a year? Or, if you use the per-person pricing plan, an extra 3 cents a day? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
Update for 1:45 p.m. ET May 4: For a different perspective on how the space effort's future is shaping up, check out this Q&A with Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan, conducted by the Houston Chronicle's Eric Berger. Cernan was critical about NASA's push for spaceflight commercialization last year, and he's still doubtful that the "young entrepreneurs" in the space business can do the job. "I don’t have a lot of confidence in that end of the commercial space spectrum getting us back into orbit any time soon," he said. He's more encouraged to see that the more established aerospace players, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and ATK, are becoming interested in the commercial push. He also says that NASA was wrong to turn its back on the back-to-the-moon plan, and that if "we aren’t capable of getting back into space in four or five years, the will just won’t be there."
Paul Spudis, senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, points to Cernan's remarks as well as Augustine's comments in a posting to his Once and Future Moon blog, titled "Who's Short-Sighted?" Spudis says it's shortsighted not to focus on the moon, which is the closest world available for setting up an extraterrestrial settlement. I should make clear that the shortsightedness Augustine is most concerned about doesn't have to do so much with the back-to-the-moon debate, but with the idea that NASA generally doesn't get the funding to match the exploration task it is given. That's what doomed the Constellation Program, and that's what could doom the "flexible path" to Mars as well.
Update for 2:30 a.m. ET May 10: Here's a tardy tip o' the Log to IEEE for arranging the interview with Augustine, an IEEE Life Fellow and one of the featured personages on a newly launched "IEEE Solutionist" website.
More on the path ahead:
- Which way for NASA? A step-by-step path
- Gallery: Seven out-of-this-world destinations
- Future spaceflight depends on neophytes
You can join the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
"Is that a vision worth paying an extra $3 billion a year for? Or, put another way, an extra 3 cents a day for?"
Yes.
Since space has failed to produce some instant gratification of profit for business, then investment in it had been far and few between. Even space tourism would be a relatively short-term spectacle. Too many would find it too expensive to see some stars, the earth below, the moon above, plus the risk of accidents in space. It's not like you can vacation at the space beach, space park, space mountains, etc. Simply floating some and seeing space outside a window gets overrated fast.
I think the asteroid idea is the best, but we'll have to get lucky to find one that's mineable, that will pay for itself plus some. Like American West mining, it took that type of allure to get companies and people moving out west in numbers. Instant riches. If companies see that same concept proven in space by OTHER trailblazers, then they might start jumping on the bandwagon.
Our space program is anemic if you ask me. Compared to some of the other programs we get nothing of value out of, I don't see why we don't instantly double their budget. What is 36 billion anyway? It is chump change to these people in Washington. Maybe with 36B, we can off this rock and land on another one. I've always wanted to drive an SUV on Mars.
Yes most definitely worth 3 cents... I would gladly donate far more than that to NASA, if there were some way to do so.
Great article Alan, and I agree wholeheartedly with Augustine's views:
Where is the donate button? WTF it's inevitable that our sun is going to explode and life as we know it will be gone... lets all donate a freak'n dollar to help fund this thing and unlock the many mysteries of our universe. Save the 6 buck from buying a cheese burger and just give it to NASA for "HUMAN SAKE"... no pun intended! :)
To put this in perspective... 3 billion dollars is how much per person per day? Is that a less-than-one-penny increase (per person, per day)?
I believe it is very much worth it. If we are going to spend the money lets spend enough to actually accomplish some of the goals.
It's between 2 and 3 pennies a day for every American, if I have my figures right.
We need to Scrap Obama's dismal plan for NASA, fire the current NASA administration, and start building Constellation and get back to the moon by 2020AD. If Nasa in 1961 could get to the moon by 1969 then we can get back to the moon by 2020AD.
If the United States does not return to the moon, thats ok. Mankind will still get there. Russia, China and India will return to the moon starting in 2025 and will have bases there by 2035ad.
Thanks Alan, I seem to have been in such a hurry I completely spaced and forgot about the decimal point. A little less than 3 cents a day is very doable.
I believe the USA would greatly benefit in returning to the Moon and building a permanent outpost there. I think it should be a priority since many of the systems that would be needed would be useful in later missions to Mars.
Dear moon-nuts: the Apollo moon missions were a waste of money, basicly nothing more than propoganda. Now you guys want us to waste money again? For what? To "beat" the Russians (or Chinese)..... again? Sirs, the space programs that make sense are to develope the capability to intercept an earth-bound asteriod and to continue unmanned exploration. Your man to the moon or (God forbid!) mars proposals are nothing but propaganda for the USA and siphon scarce dollars from more realistic and necessary space progams
Alan-
I will gladly give up two month's worth of venti white mochas if it will aid us getting on with our space program that we can be proud of again. Lessee, that approx $4.65 for each white mocha, x 6 per week, x 8 weeks for 2 months = approx. $ 223.20... I am not afraid to walk away from $200 if it was for a worthy cause... I walked away from my wife for a lot more; what another $200 or so? LOL!
Are we talking talking tax paying Americans or just a blanket "everyone" in the U.S.? Alot of people think they deserve and get free money without paying taxes.
Sow & you will reap! This damn fool has crucified NASA and it's/our ambitions, we now have to beg rides from a one time competitor, who must be laughing like a drain. Who won the space race? the country who is now charging ANYONE a hefty fee, who wants to go into space.
We are left, cap in hand asking "please sir can we ride your (one shot, limited cargo) rocket", what a joke this once proud organization has become.
Pro Ares, in this case, yes, we are talking about every American, including the kids. ;-)
jeffrey, regardless of what Apollo was (I do disagree with your opinion of it) a new moon base doesn't have to be any of those things. Personally I'd like to see an international moon base where all space-faring nations can help out and start a real moon colony. It's not propaganda, it's real life and it can be better than this.
@Magnum Serpentine
We are actually on the right "flexible" path that Norman Augustine prescribes, under Obama. Constellation was no longer viable, so it was cancelled (certain components were spared though, like Orion and the J-2X, though I wish they would consider 6 x RL-10 for the EDS as suggested by DIRECT v3.0).
NASA's new heavy lift vehicle "should" be viable. No need to "scrap" anything else at this point!
NASA's new heavy lift vehicle "should" be viable. No need to "scrap" anything else at this point!
Magnum, if we go back to Constellation we'll be lucky to get to the moon by 2030, and with only a little more capability than Apollo gave us, for all the time and money. Constellation is dead, let it stay that way. We can go back sooner and cheaper (and thereby continue to go), if we let go of the idea that a manned Moon program has to look like the way we did it before (which itself was driven by time and deadline ['before the decade is out' and before the Soviets, whichever might be first], not cost and sustainability considerations)
Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron. It is rare on Earth, and is sought for use in nuclear fusion research. The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years) and the solar system's gas giants (left over from the original solar nebula)...
V... - there's almost no use explaining that to people like Jeffrey - they're basing their opinions on what they think they know, not facts. Trying to argue against what they think is like trying to argue against their religion: since it's based on BELIEF there is no way you can logically convince someone of anything other than what they already THINK they know is right, despite any evidence to the contrary.
There is still so much we can learn about our world and others from the moon, especially if we had a stationary base there. In time it might even be habitable enough to be used as a forward base for launching more probes or spacecraft to other planets. Maybe, eventually, humans might be able to live there. That would be a long time off, but it's always a long time off from whenever we take the first step. Delay that step and you delay the end result accordingly.
Rather than donate an extra 3 cents a day (which I would happily do) maybe they should let us choose where our tax dollars are going. At least for a portion of the several taxes that Americans pay. How about the government gets to decide how to use my sales tax, and I get to designate on my tax return form how I would like them to spend my income tax. If they are going to keep our US tax system divided and purposely confusing, it would be nice if we actually had ANY input into how that money got spent. And I don't mean writing another letter to my congresssman (which gets thrown away by an aide or secretary before it hits his desk anyway), but I mean me putting MY money where MY mouth by telling the government what they can spend my money on.
The only way we will ever make manned space exploration truly feasible and worthwhile is to go back to the Moon, and mine the Moon's resources in order to build spacecraft on the Moon. The cost of launching spacecraft and space probes off of the Lunar surface would ultimately be pennies on the dollar in the long run compared to launching from Earth.
Either we double down to start getting ambitious again as Richard suggests, or we stop spending the money all together. Hanging out in Low Earth Orbit is not truly space exploration. You haven't even quite left the Earth's atmosphere where ISS "orbits." Don't get me started on how ISS is not really in a true orbit, and requires periodic reboosting due to atmospheric drag.
Space isn't just space, but a means to an end for too many different political agendas, many who retain the memory (if not the practice) of power. And the budget that goes with it. The problem is that it was too small for these groups given Shuttle, thus Bush was compelled to inflate it with Constellation. And now because it necessarily is much smaller, these groups can't accept that they must take less. And that they must use budget far differently than before.
Armstrong and Cernan are bought into the past, and also can't accept that we have a likely budget to run a really good Soyuz or Gemini program done the way they are accustomed (arsenal system, historical cost plus architectures, and entrenched contractors), or a bigger program done completely differently (cost leveraged architectures driven by clean sheet, novel vendors not tied to the past) .
Why the post Shuttle transition has always been botched is entirely due to kicking the fiscal can down the road, expecting to fund/run like the past and staying in denial. We may have to start over from scratch doing everything differently, after it all goes away, before anyone will let it be as different as it needs to be to work.
Will anyone then wish for use to do it by then?
I wonder where we would be if we had used the $767 billion of stimulus money for a long term commitment to our space program. I believe it would have generated confidence in the general population and new ideas and dreamlike goals from our space companies. We would be buying hardware not bigger social programs.
I'm just going to gloss over the political side of the comment and just say that with 3/4s of a trillion dollars we could put boots down on Mars perhaps by 2020.
What I find interesting is that those who complain about money spent on space exploration, do
not seem to realize that $767T dollars is roughly the same amount of money spent on NASA in its
entirety since its inception. And that estimate is a generous overstatement.
I believe you mean $767B dollars, and yes I agree, it's interesting that folks complain about the space agency's budget without truly understanding it or the other programs they talk about. Many of them just see the dollar sign.
$767B dollars is correct. I stand corrected, thanks mob. Pretty much all the negative commentary I see when money is mentioned is ironically enough...money is not mentioned. That is, the critics fail to post comparative figures. I wonder what they would think if they could see the national debt rises annually at the rate of fifty NASAs and counting?
Incredibly shortsighted, we wast our time with robotic probes to a dead planet when we know that there may be oceans on moons around Saturn or Jupiter. What exactly are we looking for on Mars? Microbes? Wonderful, once they are found then what? We should be looking for a way out of our solar system and move beyond simply surveying of Mars. I want to find a way to land on Titan and see the oceans of methane look at the ice on Europa. The space shuttle shouldn't be scrapped it should be improved, find better propulsion instead of simply retiring the best space vehicle we have.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the Space Shuttles. We could continue using them for a good long while. I believe the decision to retire them was made to simply free up the money for other uses within NASA.
The decision to retire the space shuttles was made because they were built using now 40 year old technology, are incredibly expensive to operate, have killed 14 people, and with the completion of the ISS, their huge cargo capacity will not be needed nearly as often.
prayer-thane... The Shuttles are still in good condition. And you say the Shuttles "killed" 14 people as if it were murder. As a space enthusiast that lives in a town that produced on of those 14 people I take great offense to that. I walk by his statue regularly and I honor the memory of all the fallen astronauts. They died in the line of duty serving our country doing what they loved. I do not believe they would care to hear the kind of talk you are putting out there.
And what's more is that the shuttles are being retired to pay for the SLS which will have a cargo capacity roughly 3 to 6 times (mass to LEO) that of the Shuttle. The shuttles are NOT being retired because they're old, they are NOT being retired because of the two tragedies, they are NOT being retired because of your cargo capacity theory.
They are expensive to operate and now that money will go to develop the HLV and Orion.
SNAPPA
Mars is much easier to investigate for signs of life than Titan or Europa. For one thing, it
should not be assumed that life will be found on the first try. Especially with low cost robotic
probes. Humans here on earth have a tough time finding fossils of dinosaurs in many cases. Not
many dino hunters find fossils on their first try.
We don't know with 100% certainty that mars is dead. Even if it is, it may have had life in
its past in which case, we could find fossils of that. It won't seem like much to lay people
but to the scientific community...finding life on mars, Titan or Europa will be the discovery
of the ages.
The shortsightedness is due to the general lack of interest in space exploration. Especially
the Human Space Flight (HSF) side of things. Find life on mars and interest may well grow once
again. That would naturally lead to missions beyond mars.
Excellent points L.J. Dean, If we can find signs of life beyond Earth it will be a VERY significant discovery. I would even go further and say that if we could find fossilized bones of some ancient creature on Mars that would be significantly more astounding than finding living microbes for most people (who aren't scientists). But that is just my little ol' opinion. This is one reason I would love to see a flying probe on Mars, perhaps a robotic balloon of some type that could analyze the huge cliffs of the Valles Marineris. It would be a unique site to study and I would imagine that if there are any fossils on Mars some may be exposed or near the surface of the cliff walls. It would be very difficult to design said robot though given the likely conditions found there.
mob_barley
I would definitely like to see something more advanced than microbiological life found on
mars. Microbes would probably not capture the public imagination as well as finding some
advanced life form or remains thereof. I have pretty much thought that humans would be
required to confirm anything short of squirmers on mars. But that was because I always
considered the kind of life to be found there would likely be microbial.
Finding some kind of bones in the walls of cliffs or anywhere, is a discovery that could
be made by robotic craft and have its biological origins confirmed here on earth by the
scientific community. That kind of discovery would definitely capture the publics
imagination.
Anyone have any ideas on why Nasa said no so quick to Usa's plan to continue running the shuttle on their own with private sector money?
So how many new shiny cars kill millions every year, invalid argument.
Thank goodness Columbus didn't worry about sailing on a fleet of aging rotting wooden ships.
Pro Ares ... I linked to NASA's rationale for selecting which companies were getting money from a previous item. I'll try to dredge that up, but off the top of my head, it seems to me that the USA proposal was excluded because NASA said it was not consistent with the goals that the program was designed to address ... the support of new launch systems. Again, I'll try to refresh my memory.
Perhaps you were thinking of this article from by Doug Messier "examining the six finalists that applied for funding to build commercial crew spacecraft." Relayed by way of rlvnews.com April 29th.
-Paradox Olbers

"In the interim, it's very clear that we could dock with an asteroid, we could go to one of the Lagrangian points, we could go to [the Martian moons] Phobos or Deimos, we could circumnavigate Mars, we could orbit Mars."
No. We can't. We need to put some serious effort into the radiation problem. There are solar cosmic rays, galactic cosmic rays, xray flares, and coronal mass ejections. These things can kill astronauts. On longer flights, these things will happen. What we're doing on the ISS is look for medical ways to reduce these issues. But what we need to do is shield the astrononauts from these issues. As far as i know, nothing has been tested in space that will do this. Once these problems are solved, then we can go ahead and design and build space craft that will get us to destinations.
My understanding is that insulating the command module in a hydrogen or water "blanket" or building it out of of hydrogen rich plastics/composite material instead of, or in addition to, typical aluminum construction would reduce exposure to radiation and cosmic rays.
How short-sighted. I have some aeronautics magazines from the mid-60's that had Werner van Braun's road map of manned solar system extrapolation based on the expected growth of technology. We pretty much abandoned his vision after the lunar landings. If we hadn't we would have colonies on the Moon and Mars and a much more significant space station. Instead we have leaders with lack of vision, an interesting but misguided shuttle program, a wimpy space station and no colonies. Where is the advanced propulsion we experimented with in the 60's? Where is the SSTO craft envisioned in the 60's and 70's?
The ROI for NASA work is variously reported from 30% to 55%. I think that might be understated since the Apollo research spawned of many of the commercial products we take for granted today.
The SSTO vehicles envisioned in the 60's and 70's are on their way... my understanding is that its just a matter of a couple key technologies coming to fruition, mainly lightweight composite materials, if they haven't already... that and having adequate market demand. That's really the key behind all of it is cost vs. demand.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33#Continued_research
Even though X-33 failed in the early 2000's, related research continues.
How about we solve some problems here first?
Why do you have to do that. What do you think we should "solve problems here first"? We could solve all the problems you are thinking of and still keep the space program.
If you look at history, culture problems were solved or cultures re-invigorated when their horizons are expanded. Egyptian, Greek and Roman expansion, the Renaissance, exploring the new world, the Industrial Revolution, the moon landing all invigorated their respective cultures and nations. Expanding colonization to the Moon and Mars would do much the same.
dave-sunny so.cal
Humanity had no problems before 1958?
Quit giving other countries millions? That would be a start.
@Dave-Sunny, That's what the other 99.6% of the Federal Budget is for...
dave-sunny educate yourself on all the advancements that HAVE solved problems as a direct result of the space program. PLEASE I beg you to rise up above opinions based on lack of knowledge. Most everything you take for granted today that you use in your everyday life are a direct result of the technologys developed as a result of the space program.
Believe it or not but Space and its exploration is the one thing that could bring the world together and help to solve problems. Only by the world getting together as a race can we truely reach out into space and explore humanities true potential.
@ Pro Ares try billions. And I couldn't agree more.
Although some of what Augustine says is generally true, his major blunder is overlooking the Moon, which will be our next major human outpost beyond LEO. We should be working with other nations to organize a joint Moon exploration program, like the ISS effort. Our focus needs to be presence, rather than a race to plant a flag...
In other words, Augustine is short-sighted...
Augustine "an idiot"? Thats a good one Clark Kent...
What should he have "left alone" exactly?
Going back to the moon doesn't inspire anybody? He thinks commercial "space tourism" which will only be in low Earth orbit won't occur in his lifetime. If that won't occur in his lifetime, then how far away is a human landing on Mars? Waiting a few lifetimes to do something that "inspiring" doesn't sound too inspiring to me.
Going back to the moon does inspire me. That's where we could practice for a Mars landing and it could also serve as a destination for real space tourism. With better digital cameras, we could have some great new images if we go back. Maybe would could plant a big telescope up there. If we have some of the technology now to be on Mars, why not send it to the Moon, set it up and see how well it turns out for would-be travelers to Mars?
I'm not an expert by any means and maybe I'm over-simplifying even going to the Moon, but I just don't think it will ever be non-inspiring by any means. Just looking at it is inspiring enough some nights. I think people going there will always be as awesome as it ever was. At this point, it is far from routine and a trip back to the Moon would draw alot of attention. And surely we can think of things to do there besides walking around and coming back.
Aren't there some cash laden corporations out there that would want to put their name on the entrance to a big glass, oxygen-filled dome on the Moon? Imagine the return on investment for some overnight tours to that destination. Just day dreaming...
I do hope we never, ever start mining the Moon. Mining operations here never turn out pretty. And mining in the lower density Moon sounds sketchy too.
Jason, the first part of your post is based on a misquote. You said:
That is not at all what Augustine said. He was drawing a parallel between commercial air travel in the 1930's when it was first getting going vs. how routine it has become today. He was saying that commercial space tourism will also become this routine, but not in his lifetime.
It should also be noted that Norman Augustine was born in 1935 and "in his lifetime" may have been a reference to his age.
Once we got to the Moon we should have stayed there. I doubt very much if our p.o.s government will help anyone get to Mars.
A colony on the Moon and then a colony on Mars would be perfect and doable over the next ten years. But no one has the guts to do it.
"Oh, someone might get hurt"
Yeah, send me. I'll take that chance. If the early explorers were as timid as our current set of administrative wanna bees the Western Hemisphere would still be populated by Native Americans and no one else. Come to think of it, that might have been a good thing.
Yeah, Jack, there are plenty of us out there who would give that left testicle to be the one to go. But when it comes to guts, it's really more of a matter of who has the guts to pony up the cash. America can do it but Americans aren't willing (at this point) to pay the 500 billion dollars it would take to get to Mars (and that's my conservative estimate of "boots down" with a settlement). A full fledged colony on Mars is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor. Some folks are worried about safety but I think more people are worried about money.
Right on the money mob! I suspect more people are worried about the money as evidenced
by the still popular argument that "We should spend money on earthly problems". And as
I often mention, spending money on earthly problems had the chance, and still has the
chance of being done due to the budget decline at NASA since Apollo. The fact we seem
to have worse earthly problems indicates to me that the huge cuts made to NASA post
Apollo, had no actual benefit to earthly problems.
Your estimate of $500B dollars for an initial mars venture is pretty close to estimates
I have seen except for the overly optimistic Zubrin Mars Direct plan. Perhaps the private
sector could get closer to the Zubrin price tag assuming the private sector ever sees a
profitable reason to do mars.
Ok moron, yippee kaiei mother^}^#**%
This is how you make it happen in OUR lifetime.
You inspire people with relevant things that grip our time. Put money into research to make the cost of going to space lower, and then give it for free to any private venture that will compete for a contract to carry payloads to orbit, which Incidentally you pay for.
That means 70 billion every year on scramjet technology. On laser rocket technology, and on nanotechnology that could make mass drivers, a space loop or a space elevator possible. You merge it with DARPA, and you have cooperation with NASA (share funds from DARPA). All pure research. Have 5 billion a year project for crazy ass concepts.
Then invest in just one huge project, but spend nothing.
7. Of the largest spaceships developed during the Orion program, and get a private firm to build them and take up the cost.
Then supply the nuclear weapons.
Us the spaceships to house a self sufficient ecosystem and crew that builds a base on the moon. Mars, Europa and Titan. Once you have them in space, no more spending required. The size of these ships are enormous, about the size of the enterprise, look it up on wikipedia.
Once they are launched, we will have saved trillions and teillions of dollars trying to come up with cheaper ways to go to space and vehicles to transport relatively insignificant payloads.
Trust me, 7 large orions will do it. It'll probably cost you 100 billion, and right there, you basically have another country in space.
Their job will be to create bases in space, especially asteroids, to start the spaxe industry and the demand that will in turn feed our suborbital demand and make use of the research done by DARPA and so forth.....creating demand for the private corporations that will have access to the publicly funded technology that will lower costs to orbit.
You wouldn't need to spend anything more, just restructure spending....many agencies, such as the navys research wing, DARPA and NASA, could all have focus on those initiatives on top of everything else they do.
We could also save money by getting the hell out of afghanistan and Iraq.
The only input od money required would be the 100 billion to get all the orions out to space. And the willingness of the government to allow a huge set of nuclear explosions.
But look at it this way...once we launched those orions, which would not really release any significsnt harmful radiation to humans, we would basically have the capability to do anything in the solar system. We could explore, establish bases, and even colonize, our solar system,
I am confident that if we had the research arm mentioned, which would only require some shuffling of money in defense, (it would be awesome if we could call ir defense but spend on this stuff), could even cut defense and still have this, we would drop the cost to orbit dramatically over thr course of 15 years...then that will align with he orions still in space which would have likely been mining asteroids and construcing orbital hotels for space tycoons after the initial
Bases, and you would basically have a synergy of the two that would lead to an orbital economy in 25 years and a colonized solar system in 35 years.
All you eould need to do is cut defense spending overseas... Resuffle some defense spending. Spend 100 billion right now and allow the use of a lot of nuclear bombs in one remote island on one day.....doing absolutely nothing to humans.
You could plausibly have a bunch of billionaires fund it....with no govermnent penny spent.
And everything i just said would come to pass.
You are right insofar as developing technologies to reduce the cost of getting craft to low
orbit. This is the key to getting access to the rest of the solar system. Scramjet powered
vehicles were studied in the 1980s. The program was known as the National AeroSpace Plane
(NASP) or X-30. Insufficient funds turned the project into a technology research effort
which is another way of saying...dead end.
There was an unmanned scramjet testbed known as the X-43 which set records for jet propelled
aircraft. That program apparently ended in 2004. Then came the X-51 waverider. But between
those and a couple other programs, single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicles looked more
daunting than previously believed. The best project engineers hoped for was a two
stage to orbit vehicle in twenty years. The X-51 set a speed record of nearly
mach 10.
As for project Orion, if you are talking about the Orion concept I think your talking
about, the large spaceships you mentioned were conceptual only. There was no harware
beyond a small test vehicle that was successfully lifted a short distance using
conventional explosives.
there is one major drawback that was never touched upon by the concepts proponents to
my knowledge. The large interstellar version of Orion was to have required 3 million to
300 million nuclear explosives for propulsion. One can infer from that data that solar
system craft would probably require hundreds of thousands of bombs to go to places
like Titan etc. And thats for just one flight!
The U.S. and Russia built around fifty thousand nuclear explosives during the cold war,
a period of just over half a century and at a cost of probably a trillion dollars or more.
If it took half a century to build less than half the required bombload for just one
flight...you get the idea.
Orion sounded great on paper, and even if a ship requiring far fewer explosives could
be developed, the nuclear concerns during Orions development ended up becoming the thing
that sealed Orions fate. Orion work was halted as the result of the atmospheric test ban
treaty of 1963. Thousands of nuclear explosives detonated endoatmospherically on a
regular basis is not conducive to good human health.
There were something like 2,000 nuclear tests from 1945 to the 1990s. Many were endoatmospheric
tests that were done from 1945 to 1963. The levels of certain radiation increased measurably
worldwide during the relatively lengthy duration the tests covered. Detonating nuclear explosives to
power spaceships into low orbit endoatmospherically on a regular basis is the same for all
intents and purpose as having a nuclear war.
An updated Orion launched from low orbit might be the ticket. One that detonates pellets
of nuclear fuel with lasers. A laser fusion drive if you will. Such a vehicle is economically
impractical today in part because of the cost of getting its components to orbit, and the
development of such an advanced engine.
And that takes us back to your original statement about reducing the cost of getting to
low orbit. That is the barrier that is holding up progress IMO. And at this point, the
private sector is probably the only hope of getting past that barrier.
I'm not talking sbout solar system travel.
Im talking sbout just getting to space with orion. You know, in orbit.
Once you have it in orbit, we can have the laser pellet system or something else.
But the main concern is to get enough of a "critical" mass in space to have a self justifying industry. You know, launch the equivalent of new York city into space.
Since it would likely only require one large orion, we wouldn't have the regular launches you describe that would make it the equivalent if a nuclear war.
Just one Orion heavy.
Once you have the large Orion in space, you can re assemble it into a craft that uses another system for propulsion.
The thing about orion is that once you launch one of the heavy type, you are done.
I would be for launching 3 or 4 and then thats it.
Each Orion would have a seperate function. The first might be a sub orbital factory, the second a moon base, the third a mining facility to experiment on asfroids and the fourth might be some sort of giant exploration vehicle.
The point is, the purpose wouldn't be to have them launch regularly, but just once with nuclear bombs.
Once you have them in orbit, you take it from there.
You could alsoxhave the additional benefit of getting rid of all coal and nuclear plants with space based microwave solar power.
One big orion will do it. Just one.
For more information. Look up "project Orion" in wikipedia, having to do with nuclear propulsion using nuclear weapons.
The thing about project orion is that it could basically accomplish what we have been attempting to accomplish for decsdes in just one day.
You see the biggest spaceship in Orion was intended as a city. A city that could colonize the solar system and explore alpha centauri.
If we launched just 7 of these mini cities, we would basically have achieved what NASA will achieve in 65 years in a day. Because instead of waiting for the technology to come online or using large expensive Saturn rockets to propel insignifanct payloads to then reassemble them as a craft to then visit mars.
We would simply launch a huge payload, the equivalent of all payloads launched by nasa in history, and be able to to any mission after that that nasa could envision with no extra cost from earth. That's why o see it as a cost SAVER.
One launch would destroy the need for all other launches...There would basicsaclly be a nation in space doing what we would have done anyway with atlas and Saturn vs....just in 5 years...instead of the 65 to 100 if we just let technology have it's way..
I may be a little pessimistic, don't get me wrong, scramjets and something like a space elevator will be one day bring down the cost of orbit and bring sbout an orbital economy...
But the date of that is uncertain . Anyone over 50 very likely will only see the beginning of it.
But for the opportunity cost of lost hours and budget disputes and money spend hundreds of billions over the course of decades, and decades tar souring,,,
We could make it happen tomorrow, with our current economic standing, for the equivalent of 100 billion, or zero If we convinced a couple billionaires.....
We already have an 100 year starship...its just politcally incorrect due to the fallout...but we no longer live with a soviet union...no nuclear war is imminent (that may change though..),
So why don't we just blast these things Into space.
Besides, there was an earlier study, called hellos, that would have self contained the explosions...but no materials were found at the time that could withstand the heat...
That might be different today, due to nanotechnology...
If we could have a Helios today. No fallout would occur....none, zip.
The key guy who pioneered the Orion project and Helios btw was the father of the atomic bomb, stainslaw ulam. We can already build a starship see.
The reason we don't have a space economy isn't technology, its politics.
Costs to orbit would have gone down with the mining industry and space hotelcindustry that would have surely sprung up from orion,..
What really killed this future was the test ban treaty, and ironically today, the projects to mars and so forth have been compromised by the wars in the middle east...
What really killed the promise of tomorrow IMO, and backed by lots of historical data,
is the loss of public will. A loss predicated in large part on the "We could better spend
the money we spend on space, here on earth" argument. One major blow to going to mars was
the fact that Mariner 4 flew past mars and showed a much less life friendly world than
previously believed. To the public, this meant there is really no place for humans to
go. Viking further sealed the deal when its initial results on finding life turned
out to be previously unknown chemical reactions in the soil.
Then came the post Apollo NASA. A NASA thats budget was deeply slashed something like
50 percent from 1966 to 1976. And despite NASA going from a high of 5% fed spending in
the 1960s to the .6% fed spending of today...no earthly problems were solved in the
way the feelgood argument would have one believe they could be solved. Nontheless,
the earthly argument continues today because it is such a good soundbite. Albiet
a hollow soundbite. And yes, that is politics as you pointed out.
Despite the demonstration of Orion as a concept...its quite a leap going from a putt putt
experiment to a full blown starship. Not to mention technologies that would have to be
developed for interstellar travel that are not even propulsion related. Were a long
way from starship technology.
Humanities propensity for war has certainly not helped any.
And if you are still not convinced. Imagine what this could, additionally to space based solar power,for commodity prices if one Orion doubled as a mining vessel.....
Msnbc is great at politics....you should really push for this one.....it really shows the strength of government..
I just put 100 billion to be conservstive...
In all probability, it is much, much lower.
We have it all wrong nowadays.... Make the rocket smaller for the greatest payload, which happens to be really really isnignifixwnt.
Project Orion needed to be a large vehicle just to withstand the explosions...
I think one was 4000 tons the other 8 million.....
This would be a mega mega cruiseship that would be a spaceship, and probably end up costing sbout the same.
You should really push for a study on this today.perhaps a helios.
If the explosions could be contained...that's it....
We have the solution....
At the moment, the VASIMR system is the closest thing we have to an advanced propulsion
system that is under study. A scaled up VASIMR or perhaps nuclear fusion could power a
large spacecraft. It would still have to be assembled in low orbit because of limitations
inherant in both concepts. Chemical rockets and the private sector is the most practical
method of getting to low orbit for now and the foreseeable future.
Containing the explosion still does not provide a solution for what to do with radioactive
reaction mass that has to be expelled from the craft to attain orbit.
Yiu have one large Orion...that's all you need o build a space xolony...
With refueling. Space hotels, and the whole lot.
Just one.
It alsocpays for itself....once you have it building moon bases....the cost of launches goes down....they can stay up longer, be less of a nuisance, and work more....all with less monetary input from earth...in fact....once we launch them,..,and have a moon base, we may not even have to maintain the space station from earth...we could do it from space...
Just giving you some perspective.
Thing withvorion you go all in. Our strategy is sending the equivalent if a garbage truck to space every year and we are somehow proud of our accomplishment when it costs us 20 billion.
This is actually worth it.
I say either go all in like Orion, or stop pussy footing at NASA and don't do snying but research u nil you can make space economical. Even blow up the space station for being such a pussy.
Pussy footing never inspired anyone.
Besides, if you can lower nuclear bomb yield ..as has already been done with new technology, and create stronger walls for a Helios design, then this would actually become THE option...all you would need is more "pulses" (nuclear weapons), that's all.
So it's actually really weird we havnt revisited this design already.
It may "sound" and "seem" ridiculous. But really, one little tinker here, another one there. And you have Orion with no fallout. Then what?
Then why are you and NASA waiting for new tech and why don't you instead, build orion.
@Sammy - a few questions here. Have you considered the amount of mass that would be required to shield the occupants of the Orion? How would you get all of that mass into orbit? What about orbital debris? I would have to say grand thoughts, but there would have to be a lot of space infrastructure built to build such a ship. Where would the fabrication units be located, on Earth or in orbit? If it is in orbit, then there would have to have a manufacturing plant built in space. Moon is probably the bext answer there, less gravity, more mass can be put into orbit. What about workers to build all of this? Each of these individuals would have to have extensive training to work in a vacuum, zero g or 1/6 g. These people would have to rotated from Earth to space, to minimize the effects of weightlessness on their bodies. If they are near or on the Moon, then there is the radiation threat working outside the Earth's magnetic field. The largest satellite we ever built is ISS and we had to use the shuttles heavy lifting of the components to acheive this. There would have to be a larger platform built in space to be able to assemble the Orion ships. Again, the idea is great, the logistics and willpower to get it done, is not there yet.
There are also the space fountain and space loop. But that's if you Want to get fancy.c
An engineer told me a space loop is " a space elevator that can be built today for half the price, but whose complexity with bearings makes it scary for an engineer"
And the a space fountain is just too expensive...one estimate was 1 trillion dollar.
However, if you consider the wars, that seems rather cheap. I'm not advocating the fountai. By any means.
Space elevators have a lot of potential.
We really need better design software, a 1970 artist image, Really up date?
Is possible that the vision is called blindness: The space program lacks vision and that is as clear now as it was in when the Space Transportation System was decided, by Nixon, was approved.
The success that we call the Space shuttle was to be the “space shuttle transportation system”. The visionary key word was transportation.
Not to disparage the retiring space shuttle programs, many successes. AND not to disparage any Senate, Representative or Political influence that could be to blame for the current situation.
It is productive to say that the SST, did not, repeat, did not lead to a progression of new designs, and did not lead to successor to the shuttle nor a new model of the shuttle, or to a successful proposal that made complete sense.
Having political influence is like all designs by committees; specify a horse, you get camel, buy the camel, and you get a donkey, at the last minute switch to a mule, launch the mule and find an orbiting goat. True each State has its own favorite animal, and the party in power wants Noah’s Ark, but the taxpayer must buy the farm. Out of desperation, first send so much money to each State, according to its political power that it can keep its opinions to itself, just so we don’t have to pay darn so much to make a launch system from parts made in 50 states. From the rest of the budget to make real system would so slimmed, expedited and simple that cannot fail due to political interference!
Here what we need and here why we need it? First what we do not need is another Flag placed on the Moon or anywhere else, eliminate the nonsense. We need a heavy lift vehicle to get important heavy objects into space, this is where we save lots of money, because we don’t have make every pound of useful space hardware life-safe, having every launch life safe qualified costs too much, and we do not need have humans ride in on top of cargo rocket in a massive motel, with sexy return vehicle with 100 thousands pound of dead weight. Those 100 thousand pounds per launch could be used for components to assemble a modular launch vehicle in orbit, configured in any way needed to, to go anywhere we need to go carrying everything we need to go there. The launch business on the ground should happen at such and such a rate and with such as minimum turn around that 400 launches a year as design goal THAT would allow us to have to have 25 launches year. Boring launch, after boring launch, after boring launch, please bore me with the routine reliability of each cargo launch, because I want to find more interesting things to do than redesign a primary launch vehicle every few years. On each launch we have interesting cargo, interesting rocket modules, interesting power units, interesting water supplies, interesting fuel modules, Lego laboratories, Lego cabins, Lego toilets, and Lego robots.
When we need people to populate and work in these interesting orbiting projects, we will certainly need life-safe vehicle design, return modules, but we do not need a gigantic space plane to return, humans and spent hardware. This is big change to have two launch systems, one to put heavy premade cargos into orbit, and the other to have humans help assemble the destination vehicle configurations (DVC), small configurations to high orbit, larger one to the moon, larger ready at the moon for return, bigger still for asteroid trips, asteroid retrievals, Mars orbiter, Mars destination vehicle, Mars return vehicles. Each of these destination vehicles configurations can contain one or more modules that assemble like Legos, consisting of living quarters, rescue vehicle, power modules, fuel modules, rocket modules, laboratory modules and safe return modules. The launch sequence could look like a string of pearls, each proven on successive missions.
Just to be CLEAR, I don’t like caps, but you guys are slow thinkers. To design and create and perfect modules that are unmanned when launched, but have to assembled after launch in into LIFE-SAFE configuration, requires a quantitative and qualitative improvement in already developed NASA life-safe design procedures. In the past, then entire launch system, and vehicle has to be Life-Safe and checked as has been done in the past, but you understand that this is done on the ground, and has to done before the launch and is done with many technical resources and provisions long tested and thoroughly practiced. The new NASA Plus procedures for orbital assembly and launch certification (In orbit Life-Safe) will have to include new and novel methods to use or modify design tools in a capacity never before attempted. Those new methods will encourage integrated iterative design that included the complete validation of components, including the design of application specific integrated chips or the equivalent that will enable automatic checking of life-safe functionality of all components.
I can help with this, but you will have to do most of the work on your own.
The money would help, but looking back to the ideology of the moon program...I can tell you what I saw, A FOCUS!! A WILLINGNESS AND RESOLVE TO ACHEIVE THE TARGET OF THE FOCUS!!..throwing money at a program that just a 9-5 for most of the people may get no farther than not throwing money...that is after all the problem with throwing money around...but if it were our resolution, the money would not be the issue, the technical challanges would be the issue....that is not to say that resolve alone ensures success, but one thing notable from immediate history, the quickly developed robot from a renegrade nasa team....thats how it's done, focus, resolve, willpower...that IS when the money can then REALLY help. A hint a previous civilization on mars for example and a program would be up and running in no time...but with such an iffy populus as this country now has, it is going to be tough, the absolute resolve now ferments withing the private community...at least we have that, it could be worse.
You nailed it! We need a focused program which IMO, is sorely lacking right now. No
firm shuttle replacement, a heavy lift rocket mandated by Congress with no as yet
defined purpose beyond cargo/human transport to low orbit. There is currently no
requirement for a heavy lifter other than a human mars mission which itself is
only vaguely alluded to. And the hope that the as yet largely undemonstrated
private sector will achieve it, and NASAs goals.
Contrast that to the focused Apollo program which by 1962, the year the LOR method was
selected...by 1962, we knew we were moonbound, knew what the rocket would be. Knew the
configuration of the CSM/LM...and of course, had a date in mind to accomplish the goal
we set for ourselves.
The way it appears to me, the private sector is now our last best hope despite the
fact they are as yet, largely unproven.
Whew!! after fighting my way through all the back and forth of all the posts, I'd like to answer the original question. YES!!! I'd give the additional 3 cents per day to further manned space programs. That said, I'd like to remind all to stay on the SUBJECT!!!LOL Oh, and somewhere in there, it was pointed out that going back to the moon wasn't "inspiring" enough. Well, just tell any and all mining companies that its untaxable, virgin territory, open to whichever gets there and stakes claim(s). Watch how fast development/ settlement happens then.
If you bring anything from orbit to the earth someone will try to tax it. It's just the way some people in gov. are.
I tend to think that Stephen's point is valid, if you can get mining companies to see the riches at the end of the road they will do the rest, but they should already be aware of the possibilities. I can tell you honestly that if I were massively wealthy (say several hundred billion dollars) I would take on all the cost and go mine the moon on my own dime. Heck, at that point I wouldn't mind paying taxes on it because I'd be a huge corporation and I could set the industry standards and lobby lawmakers and increase my bottomline. I would however be a better steward of the environment than the oil companies for example.
Virtually ALL or the developments in science, medicine, and technology we take for granted today are a result of breakthrough research conducted by our defense and space programs.
And in the same time period - roughly starting with President Kennedy and expanded through President Johnson's [failed] Great Society Program - almost unimaginable billions of dollars spent on welfare and entitlement programs have given us...millions more people on welfare and entitlement programs.
As long as I have a choice, I'll fund NASA, and take the money from entitlement programs to do it if I have to.
"Virtually all" is a bit of an exaggeration, but you can safely say "many"...
Take away the 3 billion dollars in aid that we are giving to Pakistan and hand it over to NASA........
With all we have given them in the past, look at our relationship with them now. Not much in return. Whoever the a$$ is that approves these payments shoul be fired.
That would be a$$e$, plural, as in congress.