ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Changing NASA's course?

Posted: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:35 PM by Alan Boyle


TODAY / NGC / JAXA
Click for video: Learn
more about NASA's moon plans and National
Geographic's "Direct From
the Moon" documentary.

Even as NASA works to put the finishing touches on the international space station, it's laying the groundwork for the next giant leap. But is that leap heading in the right direction? Some prominent space advocates are calling for NASA to reduce its emphasis on returning to the moon. Other countries, however, have the moon clearly in their sights.

It will be up to the Obama administration to decide what kinds of course changes might be required in America's space vision, and a member of the transition team told me today that "the process is under way."

NASA Watch reported that the lead players in NASA's transition are Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who was once in the running to become an "AstroMom" in orbit; and Roderic Young, who served as a top NASA spokesman during the Clinton administration. Garver played a big part in drawing up Hillary Clinton's space policy a year ago, and switched over to the Obama campaign after the primary season.

In a follow-up phone call, Young confirmed the NASA Watch report and told me that he and Garver were just beginning their talks with space agency officials. Substantive policy discussions are not on the agenda right now. "It's high on listening, and offering options," he said.

Shrinking the gap
NASA will be offering its own options in a report being prepared for the new administration. During the campaign, Obama as well as GOP candidate John McCain asked the space agency to determine what it would take to narrow what is expected to be a five-year gap between the shuttle fleet's retirement in 2010 and the debut of the shuttle's successor in 2015.

The successor launch system, including the Orion spaceship and its Ares 1 launch vehicle, is currently undergoing design and development under the aegis of NASA's Constellation Program.

NASA officials have indicated that extending shuttle service into 2011 would cost an extra $2 billion. That would cover one or two shuttle flights, probably including a mission to deliver the $1.5 billion Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the space station.

On the other side of the gap, the Orion-Ares system could be ready to fly astronauts to the station by 2014, Constellation Program manager Jeff Hanley told NBC News. That could shrink NASA's spaceflight gap to three years.

After today's shuttle launch, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin confirmed that an early debut may be in the cards for Orion and Ares - perhaps starting with the launch of "an unmanned vehicle all the way up to orbit." But he emphasized that there ain't no such thing as a free launch, and declined to discuss the potential options in detail.

"The data's not in yet, and I do not want to prejudice the conclusions that the teams will come up with," Griffin said. Low-cost launch options such as SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket might help close the gap as well, although those didn't come up for discussion at today's news conference.

Shrinking the gap emerged as a key recommendation in a report on future space policy issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The center's top executive, John Podesta, now leads Obama's transition team - and the report could conceivably serve as a preview for changes in the shuttle endgame.

Beyond the shuttle
So far, there have been no indications of a shift in NASA's longer-range space vision - which calls for sending astronauts to the moon by 2020, establishing settlements and then moving on toward Mars. But this week, the California-based Planetary Society outlined a revised vision in its own outer-space roadmap for the new administration.

The roadmap urges NASA to put the moon aside for now, and work with international partners to develop the next generation of spaceships. That strategy would spread out the costs of development, the Planetary Society said.

"Human landings should be deferred until after the costs of the new interplanetary transportation system and space shuttle replacement are largely paid, and after that system has been utilized to conduct the first human missions beyond the moon," the report said.

Those beyond-moon missions might go to one of Mars' moons instead, or a near-Earth object. Although the roadmap doesn't rule out establishing a moon base someday, it clearly shifts the focus of the vision from the moon to the Red Planet.

Moon vs. Mars
The moon-vs.-Mars debate has been percolating for decades, and it's not clear how much of an impact the Planetary Society's report will have on that debate. The latest roadmap is already receiving some raves as well as raspberries galore.

One of the first men to set foot on the moon, Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin, largely endorsed the Planetary Society's plan. "U.S. landings on the moon should be deferred so that they can be part of an international base on the moon preparing for the permanent settlement of Mars," he said in a written statement.

But one of the last men to set foot on the moon, Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt (who is also a former U.S. senator), scoffed at the roadmap in a letter that was sent to the Planetary Society's leaders (and shared with Space.com columnist Leonard David).

"This strategy would leave deep-space activities, exploration and resources to others, i.e., China, India, maybe Russia, for the indefinite future," Schmitt wrote. "I believe that would be major step in initiating the decline of America's global influence for freedom and the improvement of the human condition."

The emerging space powers - including China and India as well as Japan - have already decided to target the moon, with robotic as well as eventual human missions. All three of those countries (as well as the European Space Agency) have sent probes successfully to the moon in the past five years - and just today, India reported that its Chandrayaan 1 lunar probe put a piggyback lander on the moon's surface.  

If NASA is going to join forces with other countries, as suggested in the roadmap, the global space run's first destination would probably be the same place targeted during the Cold War space race. In fact, NASA has been pursuing international lunar collaborations for a couple of years now.

Unless space agencies around the world are willing to do a quick about-face, the moon will remain the destination for the next giant leap. To paraphrase JFK, the reason for that is not because it is easy, but because it is less hard than blasting off in a completely different direction.

The whole sweep of NASA's exploration effort, from Project Mercury to the Constellation Program, gets a review in two documentaries airing Monday: "One Giant Leap" airs on the Documentary Channel, and "Direct From the Moon" will be on the National Geographic Channel. Check your local listings for availability and times.

This item was last updated at 11:07 p.m. ET.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

We should invite the Chinese onto the ISS. Our ISS enables us to break the Earthly barriers we've succomed to over the years.
Every Nation on Earth should participate in our next quest to finally colonize the cosmos. It's the only way of doing it.

i think its time we renew our effort in space exploration.. for too long have i sat and seen wasted money not be spent on the worlds greatest space power NASA.. its time we put money back into those proagrams as well as education to stir up the younger generation... we must lead the world in the 21st century at space exploration
Great article Alan!  NASA must be given the money it needs to keep the shuttle flying until the new Ares rocket system is ready to go.  It would be an excellent investment to ensure that the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer makes it to the station as it will be important work investigating the beginnings of the universe.

What really ticks me off is how "Tyrant" Bush got all arrogant and ignorant with his new space race.  He wanted to beat the Chinese back to the moon just for bragging rights and to thumb our noses at them.  So childish!

We need to stop this going alone nonsense and start working far more cooperatively with many nations, including Russia and China, to do cooperative space exploration.  That would spread the large cost over many nations and would allow us to do more collectively.  I hope that Obama trashes this bushwhacker faux space race nonsense and goes after working with many other nations to help develop and manufacture Ares.
If it wasn't against the rules to leave Earth without NASA's permission, maybe there would be more participation/interest.
Speculating on their intentions is about as valid as believing you can beat the lottery.
Picture a backroom NASA meeting..."It's ours...we've Administered Space since day one...we'll do as we see fit...and everyone will play along...PERIOD!"
Lets hope the politics can be taken out of space exploration.  Its stunted growth these past 40 years is directly attributed to political policy.  Energy advances, too.  I'm ready for the space age!
If all the interested countries, US,Russia, China, India, and EU actually planned and executed a mission together it might be better and bigger than anything any country has done separately.  Of course, it may take some time to get well coordinated, but the potential is incredible.  And returning to the moon would be a great first step to anywhere else.
A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush

NASA has achieved remarkable success with both the International Space Station and the science program.  As we prepare for transition out of the Shuttle era, and have the opportunity for many historic changes in Washington, we should remember a key lesson from Hubble, Cassini, and the Mars Rovers:  Existing assets are worth their weight in gold, and maintaining their utility is very cost effective for NASA.

This certainly applies to the ISS.  No matter where you were on any of the station debates, the ISS is a national and an international asset.  The ability to service spacecraft and study long human duration in space will be improved by our continued use of the ISS.  Should the US develop an autonomous cargo vehicle, our national ability to be on the cutting edge of robotic spacecraft will flourish.  The maintenance of infrastructure in space will be valuable in creating viable plans for whatever or whenever the next step in human presence is taken.

For all of these reasons, and more, NASA should keep focus on maximizing use of our existing assets as well as engage in vigorous debate on the next steps beyond the Station.  No indulging in jokes about 'going around in circles' to justify reallocation of resources towards the 'next big thing'.

Of course, the same logic should be applied to the science programs we enjoy.   The Mars Science Laboratory will be ready for launch next year, the result of sticking to a well thought out and long term exploration strategy.  The Explorers, Discovery, New Frontiers, and Mars Scouts programs are also very successful in cost-effectively exploring a variety of science targets.  In this case, the 'existing assets' are the excellent scientific and program planning that have made for a stable launch rate and science return.

Regarding the future of the human program, the Constellation program is moving along with its twin goals of replacing our human spaceflight capability and redeveloping NASA's design infrastructure.  The incubation of commercial space involvement has also been aided by possible resupply missions.  While not as rapid as some would hope, Constellation is clearly staying true to Mr. Griffin's 'pay as you go' financial stewardship.  

As we all experience the transition from a Bush to an Obama White House, we should recall that Mr. Obama's call for change does not have to apply equally across the government.  NASA, like all organizations, clearly can use some improvement.  In our excitement to improve, we should not lose the momentum built up with our recent successes.
How about NASA starts on an alternative energy solution during the Obama admin.  If they succeed, they can go back to space exploration or work for the new energy company, but no space travel until alternative energy is established.
That HD TV video is stunning.

You still have to wonder what benefit sending more humans to the moon really means.  I hope that someday
they will build a large radio telescope on the far side away from radio noise of earth.
The next NASA administrator must make space transportation cost and new technology their primary strategic plan issue. We believe we have that future space plan on our website.
Skip the moon, and watch the American space program evaporate (especially in this economy).

The moon is visible to just about everyone right now, and despite that apparent fact NASA is having a hard time convincing people to go there because of the cost.

Trying to convince people that Mars is somehow relevant (which they can barely see in the sky as a red dot) and you are going to get a backlash (not to mention cuts to NASA).

Focus on the Moon (or even use it as a baby step), but skip it and we will all be congratulating China for landing a taikonaut (Chinese astronaut) on the Moon.
I like the idea of sending astronomy projects into deep space for a better picture.
But hey?
Let's face the politikal facts here... If the Barack Obama Administration was politikal about it? He'd go for the moon and put the first African American woman on the moon within the two terms of his Presidency. Can you see the excitement that would create across this globe ! It would be crazy with it! Now that's what I'd call a real politikal coup. Good Luck fellas

I have no problems with space travel what so ever except for that fact that all the laws and ethics of earth must apply to space ... you know my feelings on certain technology alan so you know i don't think unrestricted space travel is a good idea all the scifi movies provide more than enough proof that a corporation or "morally bankrupt" scientist could use it as place to conduct unethical business or experiments without any oversight. Most space movies show a lack of oversight into certain technology and business practices to why the future is so crummy in their universe.  On top of that the minute people start talking about people colonizing planets that don't answer to earth *in other words their own governments* people will see it as a waste of money as space travel is supposed to help earth not create another planet of humans that only helps itself. So if you want to attract support for space travel don't mention making new governments. But once we do finally get to point where colony's earn the right to have their own government we should have something like the united federation of planets from star trek. Spread democracy, morals and ethics through the universe before you spread mankind.  Please let me know what you think of this Mr Boyle. Because i see too many people touting new technology without any idea of what the downside could be. Heck for all we know we may end up in a war with one of our former colonies for control of space.

[ALAN ADDS: John, this sounds like a very deep subject to ponder.... The general rule is that technology alone does not make people more moral, whether you're talking about a gun, a rocket or the Internet. I could see an interesting science-fiction tale that could be spun along the theme of "when spaceflight is outlawed, only outlaws will be spacefliers," or along the theme of, for example, al-Qaida with a space program. In fact, I suppose the U.S. is starting down that road with the limits on sale and storage of rocketry supplies:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/003771.html

[I guess the bottom line for me is that this issue of good, evil and space technology is certainly something to think about ... we're not at the point yet where we have to worry about bad guys in space, but someday we will be.]

explorative colonization needs resources close to begin the trail of celestrial human colonies,,or not,,,does space begin at the finish line?   thus deductively swift success is levered by earth made parts.  1.an airstrip/launchpad  2.solar flair alarm bunkers   3.periodic lunar table  ....4.Mars etc.. or shall we die when earth expires?
 If we are to return to the moon it should be to erect a "log cabin" for returning explorers, any one shot voyages to the moon would be pointless.
These 'bases' should be tinkertoy style with an endless expansion capabilities. From there we can make the "jump" to Mars.
i agree that space exploration is important.  we should use the moon as a training facility to test equipment and people for the ultimate goal of landing on mars.  
  NASA needs to incoorporate the "feather" techique into furthering the ablility to do more missions closer to home and with lower cost.
NASA has long been a financial drain on America. Space exploration is a luxery item that our nation can not afford in this economic time. The money spent on most of NASA programs would be better invested in programs to improve America's education, poverty, disease prevention/cures, military ect. When we are unable to manage our own planet much less our nation it appears monitarliy irrisponsible to explore distant planets that we have no intentions of moving to any time soon.

Good article.  Bush, as usual, screwed up the space program.  What the hell are we gonna do after they retire the space shuttle.  Some of the things it does are a necessity.  It's definetly less costly and complex than rocket launches.  Even when we have the Orion, how are we gonna do important stuff like maintain the hubble, keep our stake in the ISS, refuel the station, and (something like this actually can work, its not just a movie) prevent an asteroid from demolishing our planet?!  If we really wonna go to the moon again, to claim the Helium or just for kicks or a Red Moon Scare, that's great but the shuttle could be modified to carry drop capsules with people and equipment to set up the moon base.  We don't need Bush's wasteful, (funny how Conservatives actually spend big on pointless things anyway) crippling, and pointless space program that destroys our chances of some unity with other industrial nations.
The bare facts are we spend nothing on space exploration, as a percentage of GDP or the Budget. If we spent 10% of the money that is being piddled away on "rescuing the economy", we would have more engineers, skilled and unskilled laborers working on the moon projects in tandem, rather than the moronic way NASA is doing it now. We would have the cash to get the ISS done quickly and the next efforts well on their way before the next election.

But, we would rather spend a few billion paying people not to work, rather than putting them to work. The only thing I hope is Pres Obama ends NASA's, the FAA's and the Military's monopoly/choke hold on space flight.
Here is what I would love to do. I would retrofit the remaining shuttles with shielding, large storage for water and food, recyling capabilities, and design them for 2 people. I would get volunteer explorer crews with the understanding that this may be a one way trip. I would load the shuttle with data relays and scientific equipment and send the shuttles off in different directions, out of the solar system. One up, one down, one out. With this being done, the mission is to observe, report back and deposit relay beacons at various points during the trip, like the Earth-Moon L2, L4 and L5, plus whatever scientific defense sensors we would need as well, such as solar flare and meteor early warning detectors. I would do this in a heartbeat.

Maybe even retrofit one to land on Mars. I am sure it could be done.
Time to go OUT THERE. We seem to have unlimited money supply now, thanks to wall street, unlimited fuel supply, thanks to OPEC, and unlimited high tech engineering, thanks to GM, FORD, and CHRYSLER. Now would be the time to "Go Where No Man Has Ever Gone Before.
I feel we should concentrate our efforts on a permanent settlement on Mars. Mars is the future, much more so than the Moon.  However we should use the Moon to learn how to live on Mars first.
I'ts Political.
How about the private sector establish a presence on the moon while NASA gets a human to Mars?
Skip the rest of the world. We should do it our selfs.
John Doe part of the Moon mission is just that. The Moon could be a valuable source of Helium 3 to be used in fusion power generation.
Face it if an astroid comet or major eruptions don't get us we will get one another because of the lack of resources. Space is humanities only hope of an extended future. The idea of a world at peace is our only chance of getting off it.
It's a "no-brainer" to me.  We should get back to the Moon ASAP, build a habitat there, and a launch pad or two, then launch missions to Mars from the Moon.  We should also deploy a space telescope on the Moon to view the universe without the cataract effect of the Earth's atmosphere.  The Hubble has doen that for us, but with a "telescope" on the Moon, we would more readily have repair access to it.

Bottom line; Earth to Moon, Moon to Mars, living quarters on the Moon!

George Phelps
League City, Texas
It would be nice if politics were gotten out of (science-space)-first.  The ISS is a mixture of politics, buracratics and about 1/100 science. It would be nice if it could be moved to a more advantagous orbit.  Let NASA buy the soviet design of "Klipper" and improve it, like was done in the AV-8B.
I was at Kennedy Space Center last Feb. for a shuttle launch. There is no doubt that we need to increase the US space exploration effort. To see the launch and realize that the US had the resources and manpower to pull this off is awe inspiring.
Here's a thought:
In the last century there were two things that pushed technology ahead farther and faster than any others:

1)Wars. BIG ones, little ones, the next one, Cold ones, Hot ones, etc.

2)Space Exploration.

Care to pick one to fund?
Jason:

"We should invite the Chinese onto the ISS. Our ISS enables us to break the Earthly barriers we've succomed to over the years."

What does China have to contribute, other than the (reasonably presumed, but not yet proven) ability to reach ISS?

Eric:

"We need to stop this going alone nonsense and start working far more cooperatively with many nations, including Russia and China, to do cooperative space exploration.  That would spread the large cost over many nations and would allow us to do more collectively"

But would it be one bit more efficient? Spreading the cost does not necessarily mean lower cost in the end.

Steve:

"If it wasn't against the rules to leave Earth without NASA's permission, maybe there would be more participation/interest."

And where's that written? You got a launcher, you need to talk to the FAA, not NASA.


John:

"How about NASA starts on an alternative energy solution during the Obama admin."

What does the acronym 'NASA' stand for? How about putting such a thing under the Department of Energy, where it belongs, except (and only) to the extent that there might be a space-based element to such a solution. And maybe not even then...

Thomas: You just named one of many.

Don:

"The next NASA administrator must make space transportation cost and new technology their primary strategic plan issue."

In my humble opinion, you hit the nail right on the head. Without this, anything we try to on the Moon will be as economically unsustainable as Apollo.

Steve Real:

"Let's face the politikal facts here... If the Barack Obama Administration was politikal about it? He'd go for the moon and put the first African American woman on the moon within the two terms of his Presidency. Can you see the excitement that would create across this globe ! It would be crazy with it! Now that's what I'd call a real politikal coup."

That would be nice, now mind you (and I say this as both a lifelong space buff, and a person of color), but I'm not under any illusion that it would have headline value for more than two weeks and an appearance on Oprah...

And the woman in question had better have outstanding credentials, or some people *will* claim she was sent *only* for political purposes.






If the Chinese colonize the moon first, by the time we get there again we can order Chinese takeout. Doesn't get much better than that!!
I will not encourage any course changes in America's space vision; on the contrary, it should envision to enlarge it and maintain a softly aggressive mode towards strengthening the commitment to innovations already initiated. Lori Garver and Roderic Young are very well equipped and positioned to assist the new administration in embracing the posture that the Future of future space exploration could only be based on future PROGRESSIVE space policy.

ernst wilson
Despite the pros and cons of our space program, we must remember that humankind's destiny is in space. We are just starting our baby steps into the next epoch of our shared history. Our children's children's children will wonder why we weren't on Mars sooner.
"It's a "no-brainer" to me.  We should get back to the Moon ASAP, build a habitat there, and a launch pad or two, then launch missions to Mars from the Moon."

The Moon most certainly does have exploration and development value in its own right, and many life-support and other technologies developed to do that can be applied to Mars...but it's of no value as a staging area for Mars missions. The material to build the ships must come from Earth, as will the crews and propellant. Why go down into that gravity well, only to have to climb out again?

Earth orbital assembly is perfectly adequate for this.

JJL, I was thinking about doing the exact same thing. My only dream is to escape this world and for a brief moment to look back on the world and realize that I won't be going back. I have become so disillusioned by the base behavior of people around the world and their adherence to outdated political mandate, to the point where I sometimes can't find the will to get out of bed in the morning. It bothers me that we have lost our sense of 'vision' for the future. What happened to the pioneering spirit which has always been the heritage of the American people and indeed, all humanity? We, as a race, are in desperate need of unification and the pursuit of those glistening objects lying just beyond our reach are as good a place as any to begin that unification. I believe in the indomitable human spirit and the will to overcome all obstacles despite insurmountable odds which have been beaten into us, saying "you can't, you won't, and do you really think it matters."
It matters to me to see the people of this world reach for something better. If we all have something to believe in...then there is nothing that can stop us.
NASA is just like any other government agency:  poorly managed, woefully underfunded, and controlled by egotistical maniacs.  It's time the major players in space exploration pool not only their resources and funding, but also their scientists and engineers.  I don't know if the UN would be the proper organization to handle such a cooperative effort, but something along the lines of international cooperation must be started, and started soon.  Or all these countries will be wasting money trying to do all the space exploration themselves.  Selfishness is not going to help us make strides in space exploration.
We need to return to the moon. We haven't sent humans out of Earth orbit since December 1972. If we don't send astronauts to explore the Moon and Mars, some other country will. Not that this effects the article, but Harrison Schmitt was not the last man on the moon, he was the second to last. In December of 1972, Apollo 17 commander Capt. Eugene Cernan was the last man to walk on the moon in the Valley of Taurus-Littrow.
It is extremely important to keep NASA going in our opinion.  Expensive, yes, but so is the war in Iraq.  Let us keep learning about outer space....we owe that to future generations.







The United States presence in space and its work there is not a "what if" question. I am certain that many people either feel that the space programs are a waste of resources or that we should take a "wait and see" approach. Much of the medical technology, communications technology and so many other that are vital to all of us are tied up in its survival. Not to mention that if there ever was someone to save our butts from an impact from space, they are all we have.
It is up to not only our Government to educate people about space exploration and its importance but also our news media. Main line media does not report to Americans about all the things that the Space program has brought to us (including the computer you are using right now and the technology of internet applications)on a regular and consistant basis. But you can rely on all of them to jump right in when it comes to talking about the failures and the drama when there are set backs. Space exploration will cost money and life, that always has been  and always will be the cost of progress.
There now are those who blame G.Bush for the current problems. He did not cause the loss of 2 shuttles. 1 was because NASA caved in to pressure and the unblinking eye of the camera and did not listen to the "brains" they listened to the "Suites". The other was from not fixing a problem that was known about and ignored when Clinton was still in office.
I am no Bush fan, but to all you who beleive he is responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong in this Country are only allowing those who are responsible to go about their task of dismantling NASA and anything else their agenda calls for. The national media is looking for issues to sell a paper or be the next "Big Story" of the week, not for a story that may inspire a young man or woman to get good math grades so they can also go into space. Set backs in our space exploration give the drama pushers a topic to go on and on about seeking someone to blame. NASA is a governmental agency, that means it belong to "YOU" dont support those who would sell it out for a lousy headline. It has taken 9 U.S. Presidents to get where we are, the newest one either will be apart of that great human exploration by pressing forward or he will be the "ONE" that will put us 8 years behind by the time he is gone. He is "YOUR" president and is there to listen to "YOU" not ABC, NBC, FOX, Washington Post, NY Post or any of the other bottom feeders of our nation. If you beleive this Country needs to not only be in space, but lead the way, it is up to you to not except anything less.
The more countries you include and co-operate with in space exploration, the more diluted the end result will be. It is all about politics and cooperating in space does not eliminate these differences. What do you think would happen with the inclusion of China in a space venture? Their political ends must be acknowledged and met, of course. More countries means more needless debate about where we go and who does what. NASA has always had a brilliant vision in these matters and no one has "done" space better. Let NASA set the goals and agenda and whoever wants to join in the rewards may particapate with money, technology development and personnel. Otherwise, we must go it alone. Someone has to lead the charge and I for one am not willing to cede that leadership to some multi-national, supposedly bi-partisan panel. NASA or nothing!
If we want to pretend we're sending people to Mars. Why not just send them to antartica?  Or Utah?

The challenges of Mars are going to be very different from the challenges of the Moon.

Seems much cheaper to simulate a rocket ride.

Also this should be an area of research in case of a mass extinction event.

There are very very very very few mass extinction scenarios in which Antartica is less safe than Mars.  And compared to Mars Antartica is far more hospitable thanks to an abundance of Oxygen and Water.

Self sustaining colonies on earth under strict 'rules of conduct' would be better uses of our resources than a moon colony.
With all the "red tape" involved...
By the time we get back to the moon, Virgin Galactic (and similar private entrepreneur type ventures) will already have a Marriott and a Starbucks there!
The Moon is far more relevant to humans! Every time we organize a star party for the public, we take into account the presence of then Moon in the sky.
Only from the Moon does the Earth appear as it truly is: a fragile planet.
The Moon is only 3 days away and the shortest back and forth trip would take 1 week.
The Moon has a surface as large as Africa that can be explored by pressurized wheeled mobile vehicles. Every day another landscape to show to us, with perhaps once in a while a short trip to farside or the nightside.
Mars with humans is too far in the future for us to enjoy in our lifetime. Not necesseraly so with Humans on the Moon.
Jesus H. Christ on  crutch! Far too many Star Trek fans on this thread. The future of mankind is in space? Earth is the ONLY home of mankind. Let's get outselves together here.  Freedom and democracy on other planets? How about helping the majority of Earth's people have some freedom and democracy that they do not have now?  Advanced technology to get to Mars and beyond? How about some advanced technology to solve the energy crisis before the entire financial and business infrastructure collapses into a heap and mass starvation bcome the fate of man?

Letting India and China take the lead in space? My God, life and even politics is a little more complicated than a pissing contest!  How about we take a longer view and work on our problems here on earth for the duration of the 21st Century? Imagine the technology that will be in place in 2099! Then think about manned space exploration as a knowlege seeking activity, because it will never be anything more than a basic science activity. Colonizing the moon or even Mars is like teaching a dog to sing. Nice trick, but an oddity of no real value at all. No one is going to live on a planet in another solar system and you are not going to date a supermodel either. Grow up.  
NASA as lead for anything other then space exploration is bad in my mind.  Have the military operate outside of the country with out a barrel of oil by 2015.  That would find very pratical solutions in a very quick way. We need to get back to a very basic problem.  FIND SOMETHING TO GET US OFF EARTH WITHOUT A ROCKET.  That would be HUGE and move us to some serious possibilties
You need to learn to walk before you can run.  Space is a very unforgiving.  You have to bring your own food, water, food.  One mistake can kill you.  

The moon is 3 days away, Mars is nearly a year away.  There is no Walmart out there that you can go for spare parts.  We have not even got life systems to last as long as we need them if we are going to Mars.  Even ISS, every couple of months--supplies are sent to it.  That will not be possible when going to Mars.  Mars for today is a step to far.    

If you want Mars--plan for it.  

Even the moon under the current plan is way too expensive.  People have really short memories.  Remember what happened to Apollo--it was so expensive it was canceled.  If we keep this up--Apollo 2 will be cancelled.  Trying to build---not 1 but 2 new launch vicheals is not the way to go.  I do not know about you, but myself--if I need to new vicheal and I need to deliver 100 tons to the moon--I do not buy a 90 ton van and 10 vicheal.  I just don't that kind of money--and that does not even include the maintaiance that is included in having 2 differant vicheals.  If I brought two 50/60 ton vicheals--I should save money there.  Also I can use the same parts to service the vicheal.  Sorry--but Ares 1/v combo needs to go!  We cannot afford it.  Griffen said himself--the biggest mistake that we made was cancelling the Saturn program and not building more of them.  Here we are in 2008, and we are about to make the same mistake.  The american public needs one vicheal that can serve it well for next 20/30 years.  The Direct roadmap offers a better choice--less expensive, more options of growth than the Ares roadmap.  

You only have to look at this summer to see this is true.  What happened to the SUV?  No-one is buying them.  Why too expensive to run.  :-(  Ares I/V is too expensive to run. If we get 1 Apollo landing a year at the expense of the whole NASA budget--it will be shutdown! The Direct vicheal is alot more cheaper to run and maintain. If the vicheal is cheaper to run and you have the same budget--you can run more missions.  If you can run more missions--it is easier to get public and political support to plan for other things such as MARS.
Orion will be a great program. The design is revolutionary. But the shuttles are approaching thirty years old (with the exception of Endeavour) and they need to be retired as soon as possible, preferably before another crew is killed. They should stick to the plan to use them until 2010 (very carefully), but not beyond that.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1675123

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google