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.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I'm stunned by the number of people suggesting an open ended entension of Shuttle use. Those machine are older than the average collage student and were never built to fly this long. How many do they need to blow up for you to get the idea. It's too costly to retrofit and even if they did the Shuttle dose not have the capabilities to do whats needed in the next step of space exploration, which is the moon or Mars.
The Shuttle is not a realistic option.

Dean B, Tampa, FL (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:40 AM)

It is rather naive to think that space will be conquered by a world collaboration. Heinlein's vision from the 50's is more accurate and realistic than what the Planetary Society is proposing.

GO USA. We need to double or triple the budget for NASA and NASA needs to work with private US companies to improve and lower the cost of space exploration.

If you think the cold war was scary just think what it will be like when India, China or even Pakistan put Nukes in orbit.

Michael West (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:51 AM)

Dan, Earth signed (11/15, 0401), “(You wonna know more, you must be an internet rapist)” Anonymity on the Internet is how child pornography and predation thrive.

George Phelps wrote (11/15, 1216), “…on the Moon, we would more readily have repair access to it.” Others seem to agree that the moon should be a staging area for Mars shots. We have greater access to orbiting satellites (ISS) without the additional fuel expenditure and landing hazards. A lunar base would be wise as a proving ground because we are more able to mount a rescue mission to the moon than to Mars. But I wouldn’t worry about setting up a station on the moon until we work out the problems with one on Earth. I haven’t checked on things for a while, but when I last checked the BioSphere experiments were not overwhelming successes. Make it work here, make it work on the moon, then take it to Mars. Then we can start considering things farther from the “Goldilocks Zone.”

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 12:04 PM)

in all the years in observing the "space race" it has been shown quite blatently, that working together on the space gains works better.we have a joint space station, why not a joint program to set an appropriat fixed base on the moon for say,repairs,adjustment to environment of space and research facilities for al nations and parties invoved.
as there is saftey in a planet based operations center,more that an in flight one.it makes good sence to create a base of operations thats less likely to be damaged or destroyed in orbit. pluss the moon can be used as a supply depot for needed supplies for a mars team.

steven cherrone-bremerton, washington (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 12:25 PM)

Personally, I don't care if we go to the Moon or Mars first or build another two, three or four space stations. But when we do there, let's do it with overwhelming numbers of space craft and personnel. That means getting all the developed/developing nations that have space exploration plans to work together to figure out the technical problems and then send a large number of craft and people all at once to the destination. For example, if we decide to go to Mars, let's collectively figure out the best craft to make the journey, launch as many as a dozen of them with full crews, land multiple parties on the surface, establish multiple outposts, set up supply lines, have a big celebration party, etc., etc. The current approach is to launch one craft with a small crew and hold our breath and hope nothing goes wrong, as happened to Apollo 13. Had there been another two or three or four craft accompanying them, their mission could still have happened, even if the Apollo 13 craft was not able to finish its mission.

As we all know, something will go wrong. That’s unavoidable. But with a number of other ships and people in a small fleet, there is a better chance of rescue when the unavoidable happens. There is also a much better chance at success.

Richard M., Baghdad, Iraq (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 1:50 PM)

The space shuttle is a death trap. NASA knows this. It isn't just about the money, they know this. How many more times are you willing to put 7 astronauts lives in extreme peril, just for international fame???

Keep the constellation program rolling along and get us to the moon before the Indians do it first.

John Collinson, Calgary, Alberta (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:05 PM)

Let's get the black budget space ships at Area 51 uncovered. Use those ships for space flight. Bet they go faster and get better MPG than NASA aging fleet of junk.

John, USA (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:09 PM)

Welfare has long been a financial drain on America. Wealth transfer is a luxury item that our nation can not afford in this economic time. The money spent on most of the wasteful social programs would be better invested in programs to improve America's position in space. We are unable to manage our own lives much less others. It appears monitarily irresponsible to squander money on wealth-destroying social programs that have no chance of working any time soon.

Mike Puckett, Charleston, WV (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:16 PM)

John Holland: regarding going to war with our former colonies in space: Arthur C. Clarke wrote an excellent novel based on this theme called "Earthlight." My engineering and "rocket science" acquaintances and friends (I was lazy and diddn't finish college) tell me that the shuttle was a big stretch beyond materials science of its time, and even today asking a craft to do all that it does safely is somewhat beyond us. Probably we will one day have the materials science, but for earth orbit we'll eventually have Clarke's "space elevators" anchored by nanotech metals, in thin strands thousands of miles long from orbit to earth. Short term, the new Aries, et al look good, and I agree the only really sensibel way to push onward in the solar system is through an international program.
To those who think this all a collossal waste of money till we solve poverty, etc: As Lincoln allude to, there are the seprate issues of short-term emergencies ("the farmhouse is on fire") and long-term projects ("you have to plant your crops for the coming year."). No advanced, educated, technical society should abandon long-term goals--which also improve the quality of life for everyone as a by-product. What was true at the close of Apollo (while we were still fighting in Vietnam) is still true today: if we took what is spent on useless and unnecessary war-making, and dedicated it to space exploration, we could could advance toward the stars and have enough left over to better house and educate those now lacking.

Lawrence, Naperville, IL (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:35 PM)

The ISS has been the billion dollar boondoggle in space from the start and will likely suffer the same fate as skylab did come the peak of the 24th solar cycle sometime around 2012. The mission to return to the moon only makes sense if it's prime focus is to extract Helium-3 for fusion based power plants. The Indians and the Chinese are interested in the moon for this very reason, and know that the folks who perfect Helium-3 recovery and something like inertial electrostatic confined fusion will be in the drivers seat for economic dominance on Earth and as a fast transit mover to Mars. Helium-3 can be extracted from lunar regolith using automated landers, mining vehicles and return craft. The NASA of old was an effective tool at showcasing American technological prowess and economic success versus the Soviets. The new reality is the US is not only broke, it's so far in depth to the very folks who want to see us reduced to the Finland of North America as to make the Mars mission and the ISS vanity missions for a nation in deep trouble. Change the mission of NASA to be part of the energy solution. Otherwise maybe it is time for NASA to go the way of Packard and Studebaker, and that is to fine museums across America.

David Midtown Michigan (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:35 PM)

Don't worry Michael, it may not be you, it may not be my son, but someday, some human is going to be looking at Earth the way you want to.

and they will..."Go Boldy, where no one has gone before."

D, Aurora, Colorado (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:51 PM)

JUST THOUGHT I WOULD MENTION THAT SCHMITT WAS NOT THE LAST MAN ON THE MOON, IT WAS GENE CERNAN.

ALINA, TUCSON AZ (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:09 PM)

it's a sad day when usamericans take the backseat to any space effort of other nations. pew. stinking kitties are running things now. what's happened to us?
we failed at skylab. we let a perfect op to fall away.
the shuttle has been a total and complete waste of time and money.the lives that were sacrificed for nothing is criminal. if nasa were aig we'd be sending people to the stars by now with that total waste of money. just think of where we'd be if there was some foresight at nasa and washington. only some thought.
any thought would do.

kenneth g. phoenix,az (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:59 PM)

NASA has wasted billions of dollars on publicity stunts and sometimes let real science and exploration be pushed to the back burner. Can we trust the same bunch to make decisions about what's important for the future.

For a start, we need a truly reusable space vehicle. I would envision a goal of a possible turnaround time of a few days instead of several months.

I would like to see a goal of a series of trips to Mars. Send robots and unmanned ships to deliver shelters and supplies before sending personnel on what should be a several month stay.

Chet H. Riverside County, CA (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 9:11 PM)

Just wanted to clear up an error. The last man to step foot on the moon was actually Gene Cernan not Jack Schmidt. Jack Schmidt came out of the LM last; however, mission protocols are clear that when the mission came to an end LMP(Lunar Module Pilot) enters the LM first with the Commander following. In the case of Apollo 17 Jack Schmidt was the LMP and Gene Cernan was the Commander. Therefore, as the two men left the moon to rendezvous with Ron Evans in the CM(Command Module), Gene Cernan entered the Lm last. This means that he was the last man to set moon on the moon.

Justin (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 9:20 PM)

The poeple who colonize the moon and then Mars should not be from the USA, China, Russia or India. They should be from the Planet Earth. Together we can do so much more that seperately. A global space program could unite the people of our planet to a common goal which would benefit us all.

Ed McDaniel, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:24 PM)

The pivotal question about the exploration of space is not how much money it will take, or the reliability of equipment, or which nation will win the race. No, it is not so simple.

It is this: Does mankind have enough time left to us to find a solution to the imminent destruction of this planet? Can we avoid the fouling of our own nest, preventing the first primitive flight to the ultimate freedom for which our very nature yearns?

We must ensure that the Earth we leave is worth coming home to afterward.

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:19 PM)

Seems to me what happened to the US space program was that we made it to the moon then we let others catch up to the point now that we are behind in the space race once again.

To sum it up, I feel our space program ended up like this. "It's one small step for man. One giant leap for man kind. Oops I fell on my butt after that leap and can't get up anymore."

Anon (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 1:20 AM)

No to all of that. Yes to a hugely trimmed-down NASA becoming a consultancy with facilities for private space companies. Let the commercial exploitation of space begin. You know America will win this way. I'm not even American.
I'm rather tired of seeing money being wasted by unimaginative bureaucrats. I don't pay US taxes but it still irks me. So why doesn't it annoy US taxpayers?

Martin J Smith, UK (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 8:05 AM)

The moon is not going to be a feasible source of 3He for fusion reactors. We don't have economical fusion reactors for burning even DT, and that's 50 times more reactive than D-3He. Moreover, at an average concentration of about 10 ppb in the regolith, extracting 3He would require enormous infrastructure on the moon that would render it too costly with foreseeable technology, even if the reactors were free.

Space travel is an enterprise where dreams have morphed into delusions, I'm afraid. NASA is basically a parasite feeding on these delusions.

Paul F. Dietz (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 8:51 AM)

I'm surprised there haven't been talks about rights to the land on the Moon. With everybody now wanting to land there artefacts, vehicles of any kind even human missions the issue of "restricted" areas hasn't come up yet not that I know of. It won't be long before we see all of these nations in the space race discussing the subject and may be mapping the Moon and auction it or simply create possession of large areas of it. Or it culd be like history taught us it happened here in the USA some time ago: First come takes possession.
Perhaps the next boom of the real state is on the Moon.

Nelson Rubio, Pembroke Pines, Fl. (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 9:20 AM)

Don't forget the risk! The Shuttle and it's technology is old. There is a real risk for the crew. After seeing a couple of them lost, maybe we're asking too much.

Additionally, concerning multi-national space programs, The ISS works to an extent. China, North Korea and others have spent decades stealing technologies developed by the US and our close allies. These stolen technologies have been used to boost their missile and atomic weapon research programs.

I support a global space program, but have reservations about handing out "free lunch" cards for technologies developed and paid for here at home. I understand it can work both ways, but the U.S. never seems to benefit from these partnerships well. For example, we learned a great deal from the Russians on long term space flight in our partnership, was it worth the cost?

Beauregard Gustavson, Kaysville, UT. (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 10:13 AM)

The problem is the significant failure to understand that space exploration is always linked with security issues. The moon remains the ultimate high ground and that consideration must be paramount. We must focus on the moon lest some other power decides to put a missle base on the moon someday.

Keith, Whittier, CA (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 11:00 AM)

place a nuke engine on mars moon deimos. slow it down a bit to mars sync orbit. park it over predetermined spot. you now have a spaceport,comsat,fuel dump.easy on easy off - more like dock undock. lots of yummy materials too. now lower a cable to mars. elevator provides ride for people and materials on the scale needed to do stuff properly instead of just barely. from lower end of cable we radiate out across the planet. bobs your uncle. deimos is de most.

dirk alan, toledo ohio (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 11:03 AM)

The benefits of a aggressive space program focused on developing a permanent base on the moon, go beyond the expansion of knowledge of the universe. I remember when I was 11 the first sputnik was launched. I think it contributed to my interest in science and ultimately I became a Professional Engineer and a college professor. An exciting space program can generate an whole new generation of scientists and engineers.
jjh

Jim Houdeshell, Dayton, Ohio (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 11:05 AM)

Wow, no wonder our space policy is so FUBAR as displayed by the majority of comments here being so far of base.

The Shuttle represents probably the worse way to economically move equipment and crews into orbit. Shuttle exists purely as a pork project to funnel congressional dollars into districts that support NASA and NASA contractors. The Shuttle costs a ridiculous 1 billion dollars to just launch one time. We have the technology and the now how to build launch vehicles that would be safe and robust at 1/5 the cost of a single Shuttle launch. The Shuttle has a pitifully low flight rate and even then still manages to kill it's crew 20% of the time. If an airline had that track record it would have been grounded long ago.

The Vision for Space Exploration as outlined by President Bush represents a noble and worthwhile goal. He set some relatively loose guidelines as to the direction of U.S. manned space flight and then set Mike Griffin off to accomplish these tasks. The problems we face are really the result of Mike Griffins decision making. If Bush is to be criticized for anything it is how he has remained so hands off despite his appointments bad decisions. As long as one of his appointments shows loyalty he doesn't really care how effective they really are. The length of the gap and the costs associated with Ares are the direct result of Griffins insistence on sticking with "Apollo on Steroids". This isn't sustainable, and it is not going to make routine and afford access to space a reality.

Cooperation with International partners in the past has done nothing but show us that it actually increases the overall costs of a space program, introduces unnecessary delays into a project's development, and creates additional complications in the face of future political tensions (like when Russia invades another country). So, the idea that international cooperation is an effective resource for our space-faring needs is ridiculous. It merely just serves at giving us all a Kum-ba-ya moment when people of different cultures hold hands for 5 seconds at 22,000 miles an hour. This is no better than a flags and footprint moment on the Moon.

We should not focus on the destination for our space efforts. We need to focus on the space access infrastructure. If NASA should do any one thing in the immediate future they should build and loft a fuel depot into orbit. Private launch companies could then be contracted to lift propellant to the fuel depot. The economic principle of amortization of costs will take over and begin to drive down the costs of launch. The more you fly the cheaper it gets. The more fuel you have in orbit the more your launch weight margins can be allocated to actual hardware instead of fuel volume. The more hardware you get to orbit the more people you need to get up their to orbital assembly. Once you've mastered orbital assembly you can then assemble adequate vehicles for exploration of the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. The ISS doesn't count since it is the wrong orbit launch anything beyond Earth orbit.

Josh Reiter (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 11:59 AM)

I think we need to look at space travel like the early Spanish explorers. There needs to be a payback. NASA has shown for years the return on the dollar but it does not capture the average American's intrest. Start a gold rush, and within a few years there will be a dozen options. The India probe is exactly what is needed. Helium 3 may be the gold that lights the fire. Water is the "gold" for fuel and human existance, but Helium 3 could cause the rush if the quantities are sufficent.
If we dont go for the Moon, I predict we will fail to be a Superpower within the next 50 years and those that do will be the big guy's on the block.

Space Nut, Sterling Va. (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 12:23 PM)

I think the collective brain power being used to explore space should be diverted to problems here on earth. If all these minds together can not create a vehicle that runs on tap water and still runs powerful then they don't have any business working towards space exploration. Earth quake proff buildings, then just give the designes to china, don't sell them, it's simply the right thing to do. Cheap housing materials that are still strong, even fire proof, so those califonia homes wouldn't have burned. Even flood proof so all those hearts in Lousiana would still beat. We have so much to do here and now, it's not that I don't want to go to space, it would be glorious. I'm just not arrogant or self centered. Space will always be here, but if we destroy our planet, we'll never get there. 20 yrs seems long from selfish point of view, but it is no sacrifice when you think about what could be accomplished if the scientificic community hired body gaurds to protect them from politicians and simply started to solve problems and post the results on You-Tube and actually go around to universities and saying, "hey, we have a car that can go 100 miles to the gallon, but exxon wanted to patent."

TheMovement, North Dakota, US (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 12:23 PM)

A Lunar base is the most logical "next step". With its close proximity to Earth, lower launch\landing fuel requirements and abundant raw materials, it would be just plain dumb to pass it up. We need to learn how to live outside of earth's orbit. How do we protect ourselves from radiation and micrometeors outside of Earth's shield? How do you find, mine and process raw materials in a barren hostile environment? How do you manufacture fuel, air, replacement parts and new machinery on a foreign, lifeless world. We need to learn these things before going on multi-year journeys.

There is also the very real opportunity to use the moon to supply energy to Earth. A permanent colony on the moon can collect solar energy and beam it's excess back to earth based receivers. Not only should a number of governments be interested in this, but there should also be corporate interest as well.

OneVoice, Frederick MD (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 1:01 PM)

The fundamental problem is and has always been the lack of an appropriate longterm vision / goals. When President Kennedy set the goal of "landing a man on the moon...and returning them safely to the Earth", the nation rallied and accomplished the feat. But, what then? We had a perfectly good vehicle, trained and experienced crews, a costly and highly specialized infrastructure - that was abandoned, wasted.
If we go back to the moon, or to Mars, or the 'belts and beyond...what are we going for? What is the long term goal...because, we've demonstrated that if we choose to go there, we will. It is without question that the effort we make will be repaid by unexpected benefits and advances in every area of human endeavor.
The "space program" only makes sense (imho) if our goal is to forever step beyond the confines of the Earth and to take full advantage of the riches (in both material and scientific terms) that are circling above us - now,out of reach - by whatever means necessary. Each step; station, LaGrange point transfer, moon telescopes (and mining, and manufacturing), Mars and beyond, will bring us the capabilities to accomplish the next.
Maybe it will take 25 years or longer but without a vision that transcends political whim, we will never even start.
We've seen what 8 years of "visionless" leadership can bring...I think the word is "chaos".

Eraxmuz B. Dragen (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 2:23 PM)

We should quit wasting the tax payers money. What is the point of going to the moon. As far as Im concerned the Chinese can have it.

Ed S, Chicago IL (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 2:27 PM)

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?

- This is the correct response to any argument against the space program. For the Moon vs. Mars issue, it's simple math, and a Mars mission launch from the moon is many times more fuel efficient than a Mars mission launch from earth itself.

There are still many things we need to learn about extended space duration flights. Setting a base on the moon and having astronauts live there for a year or two is a GREAT way to learn. That way when we send astronauts on their 3-5 year trip to Mars, they'll have some idea of what to expect.

The underlying issue here is safety. The Apollo shuttles had skin as thin as aluminum foil protecting the astronauts from the rigors of space. It was simply not safe at all. It was the difference between night and day, or the difference between a qualified fighter jet pilot and a Cessna-trained citizen both attempting to fly a space shuttle. That fighter jet pilot is going to be A LOT safer because he has more experience with the way high-speed maneuvering is handled, and in general is a lot smarter.

My personal ideas for how NASA should operate in the future though:
Overhaul the entire association, assessing each job's importance. Expand it to be a coalition of sorts. Private sectors from America should be allowed to work directly with or in tandem with NASA, to cut costs and increase creativity.
From there, set plans to build:
Base on moon
Training and experiments in the moon base, to assess issues expected on a long term mission to Mars.
Mission from moon to Mars.

A separate branch of NASA should focus on working with the CERN laboratory in Geneva to attempt to perfect fusion generators. Not only will this revolutionize energy production on a global scale, it will pave the way to more powerful Ion drives or even direct fusion propulsion for spacecraft.

The plan would be to ultimately propel us back into a future technology driven economy.

Josh, Missouri (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 2:41 PM)

What is wrong with The Planetary Society, of which I am a member (but not for long, I'm sure)? The VERY NEXT national space policy goal should center on Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP), which prioritzes the moon over Mars and all other human exploration beyond the earth-moon system. We need to make our earth-moon neighborhood work first for human benefit. Cheap space access technologies that are required desparately to do much of anything at all in space will demonstrate their best ROI by FIRST serving a robust satellite solar power program. The cis-lunar manufacturing infrastructure that's proposed for building the satellites using 99% lunar materials is ONE AND THE SAME for building rotating human habitats in free space and for building ambitious ships of interplanetary scientific exploration. You DO NOT go to Mars first in an earth-launched Apollo-style craft of tiny architecture and limited scientific return and foresake the moon to do it. You USE THE MOON'S RESOURCES DIRECTLY to build large well-equipped ships which will be a by-product of a working satellite solar power industry. Space-Based Solar Power creates millions of jobs on the ground and in space. A single solar power satellite in geo orbit will cleanly deliver to the power grid an output equivalent to 10 nuclear fission plants. SBSP will end our dependence on foreign oil, to say the least. SBSP, invented in the US 40 years ago by Dr. Peter Glaser, has been reviewed favorably by NASA, DOE, and DOD, and it singlehandedly integrates missions in these Departments and addresses our most pressing policymaking needs: Energy Independence, Space Advancement, National Security, Economic Growth, Scientific and Technological Prestige, Environmental Preservation, and Education. Mars addresses NONE of these needs, and the planet's distance, gravity well, and harsh conditions do not lend themselves to compete up front with the late Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill's free-floating habitats, which will far better serve Humankind's advance into the solar system. Dr. O'Neill's "ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR US NATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM" is available on the Space Studies Institute's website: www.ssi.org. It is a bold and rational vision that all Americans and partners can get behind and it's right for this time. The Planetary Society's November 13 release, "Beyond the Moon: A New Roadmap for Human Space Exploration in the 21st Century", which shamefully proposes to leapfrog the moon in favor of a short-sighted and elitist "flags & footprints" Mars misadventure of little serious return, is NOT the right path.

Robert Sugg, Tampa, FL (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 4:07 PM)

Here is an idea for a quick interplanatary space ship. Retire 2 shuttles to an area around the ISS. Then we will have our first ship building site in outerspace. Merge them together into a single ship, retrofit the engines for ion propulsion (or micro nuclear pellet propulsion) and we are ready to go to the moon. Lower the habitate parts using a cable from the cargo holds of the new melded shuttle.
We would not have haul spaceship parts up to space and two shuttles joined at the wheel bays would provide room for 14 people and two storage bays. They are already space ready and good to go.

Bill Mills, Norman, OK (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 4:34 PM)

Hi Allan -

The paradigm shift is coming, whether the US leads or follows. Few people still understand that we are already in space, all of us, passengers on spaceship Earth. And in the last six million years we nearly went the way of the dinosaurs several times. Then you have smaller impacts: around about 10,900 BCE roughly 95% of the people living in North America died due to impact.

Administrator Griffin ignored the Congress's explicit instructions to him to come up with a plan for dealing with this hazard, and that was our Senators and Representatives, Democrat and Republican.

Further, IMO, Griffin's abilities as a General Designer are pretty poor. John Pike once told me you don't make a rocket's second stage larger than it's first, and d*** if Griffin didn't do that with Ares 1. It's a dog, every bit as bad as the VSE architecture, another engineering design he worked on.

So what should NASA do? Ditch Ares 1, go with Direct. Extend the shuttles a bit. Let's not loose those skills and technologies, and let's at least get a good medium heavy launcher for the next generation of sats.

Use 3 man capsules with the EELVs and Falcon 9 for ISS, man rating (and improving) our commercial launchers, and making them cheaper to use.

Focus on man tended asteroid and comet detection systems on the Moon (CAPS), not simply flags and footsteps, and use a fuel transfer station in lunar orbit so we can share the costs of this with other nations.

Once this is done, we'll know what other purposes we can use the Moon for next, whether its 3He for fusion, SETI, or fuel production for the next steps.

For Mars, in the meantime focus on long range rovers so we can find out whether or not we face a back contamination problem.

Drop the legislative restrictions on SETI studies and engineering studies of manned Mars systems. Just a couple million clearly limited for each area.

Reduce insurance barriers and research safety improvements to support general aviation.

Research fuel efficiency and possibly alternative fuels for our airline industry.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

E.P. Grondine, Kempton, IL (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 5:33 PM)

I am opposed to retiring the space shuttle for the simple reason it can perform another critcal task, ie, the return to the moon by humans.
The Orbiter is a proven space craft that can be reconfigured to act as a Lunar Transfer Shuttle. Remove the wings, landing gear and tail plus the other Avionic gear and you have the perfect vehicle to travel between the earth and the moon. The orbiters are designed for 100 launches and landings, which are the most stressful on the frame, but much gentler launches from orbit will extend the useful lifetime of the vehicle for hundreds of trips to and from the moon. Base it on the ISS, launch External tanks fueled and attach to the LTV, send up a crew and go to the moon. For shielding cover the crew areas with borated water ice and a thin aluminum shield and be able to protect the crew much easier than the stupid capsule being touted by NASA as THE way back to the moon. Why waste such a beautiful vehicle when its useful days are far from over?

Louis Archuleta (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 5:38 PM)

If we can't develop a permanent presence on the moon, then what is the point of going to Mars other than for a "flag and footprints" photo op? The technology developed for a long-term lunar presence is the dividend that makes Mars possible. Any meaningful stay on Mars will require Astronauts to stay there a minimum of 6-9 months. That's technology we have never developed before. The moon is 3 days away, Mars is 9 months away! With all due respect to the Planetary Society, they are not experts, they are a bunch of space enthusiasts that read too much sci-fi.

cmac (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 6:07 PM)

So mars is made of solid Gold. Whoopie! Now what? Try getting it back. What good is all this when our home planet is in such trouble? HELLO

Ted, Sacramento (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 6:58 PM)

Anti Matter drive is practical...and on the Horizon...(History Channel/Universe), also Ion drive (for deep space)....Science fiction...Nope!...It's already here and proto types (ion drive is already used: Astroid intercept 2002). The Moon, Mars and beyoud will give use a sanctuary for human kind (in case we get entirely stupid: Nuclear War or other unforseen events such as a Astroid strike ie: Goodbye Dinasors {sp}). It will give use new industry out there not here...new power discoveries...a chance to expand into the universe and beyond....It dosen't matter who is first anymore....It matters that we "GO." Money?...what is that? If we can find two or three more Earths to colonize, AND DO IT RIGHT....HAVING LEARNED FROM OUR "MISTAKES." New undiscovered minerals that could change the way we build, New Fuels that will power our machines....new technology that will save lives and feed our starving masses....It is mankind that counts and saving "All" species from demise....Any other considerations no matter the obstical is infinitely small next to the benifits that will come...and the security it will bring....A common goal that mankind must grasp and proceed with....no matter the cost...in money or in lives...The "End" will justify the "Means." It must. The Earths resources ARE FINITE...It will not continue to give it's abundance to us...We ARE destoying her....eating her up....We will fight WARS over the dwindling supplies...Our standard of living will fall...subside....untill we are at the begining of the end....We MUST go to the stars...the planets...the astroid belt....and harvest the universe...to SURVIVE....Jean Langford M.

Jean Langford M., Durango, Colorado (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 8:25 PM)

After all the talk good or bad about the future of space or space programs we have to take the most sound space program choice if we are to survive as a
species. The every growing human population makes that chioce for us. The earth will not be able to
sustain that much humam life in decades to come. We are all ready getting major signs from energy to food and last living space. Colonizing the solar system is the next step for all of earth's people.So infighting on this level needs to stop or we will be extinct.

Raymond Allen Caton (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 8:48 PM)

Marcus Lukens said (11/16, 0058), “I don't know if the UN would be the proper organization to handle such a cooperative effort …” I’m sure it’s not. Something more like CERN with a scientific instead of political purpose stands a better chance of productivity. And a planet wide cooperative effort might be effective and might soothe some political woes along the way. In any event, I can only see trouble if there’s some space race to stick our pin in some planet(oid) before they do, then they don’t recognize our ownership just because we were there first, … Your thinking is spot on.

Right below Dan Richmond disagrees, but because of politics. Again CERN, based on science, as a model.

Dean B wrote (11/16, 1140), “Those machine [space shuttles] are older than the average collage student and were never built to fly this long. How many do they need to blow up for you to get the idea.” How many have blown up because of advanced age? We know they had design flaws, we’ve fixed some of them. We’ve had problems with people, those won’t go away just because we have a new vehicle. The design flaw fixes will, but not the people problems. True enough, the shuttle doesn’t have the capabilities for that next step. We’re not ready to take that step. I wouldn’t buy snow skis for a newborn. I wouldn’t buy a vehicle to take us to Mars. The shuttle works for the missions we’re ready for now, and the direction we need to move in.

Martin J Smith wrote (11/17, 0805), “I don't pay US taxes but it still irks me. So why doesn't it annoy US taxpayers?” It annoys the crap out of us. But the people responsible are the ones we voted in. Remember, we’re slipping in education.

Beauregard Gustavson wrote (11/17, 1013), “For example, we learned a great deal from the Russians on long term space flight in our partnership, was it worth the cost?” Depends on what we do with it.

“TheMovement” (11/17, 1223) China has engineers, what they need is building code enforcement. How many burning California homes had roof sprinklers? How many burning California homes were built in fire prone areas without using fireproofing techniques and materials available now? Those hearts in LA would still be beating if they didn’t live where a failed levy would kill them. I’m not trying to be cold, but levies have failed before, resulting in flooding, and will fail again, resulting in flooding. The way to avoid the flood isn’t new materials, it’s a different location. We don’t need to divert our engineers because people won’t engage in critical thinking when it pertains to their own good.

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Monday, November 17, 2008 9:57 PM)

I'm sure the astronauts on the ISS would like some Chinese food delivered

Larry Eustacy, Ames Iowa (Sent Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:29 AM)

"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!"

I think that you should study history, Sir. This is philosophy that got the U.S. on the moon the first time. The lack of competition is partly responsible for the lack of progress. Once America won the space race it moved on to defeating the USSR in other areas, like hockey.

Austin, San Antonio, TX (Sent Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:40 AM)

I would wonder where the human race would be today if 40-50 years ago the space race was ended and an international effort was mounted. A kind of world-wide Manhatten Project for the good of the world. I wonder where we will be in 40 years if it would be done today? But, due to idiocy, testosterone, and short-sightedness. It's not likely to happen, is it?

Ross Collicutt, Summerside, PE, Canada (Sent Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:37 AM)

Steven:

"in all the years in observing the "space race" it has been shown quite blatently, that working together on the space gains works better.we have a joint space station, why not a joint program to set an appropriat fixed base on the moon for say,repairs,adjustment to environment of space and research facilities for al nations and parties invoved.

Jus how do you know that it's 'better' than a single-nation space station/Moon base of the same scale?

"pluss the moon can be used as a supply depot for needed supplies for a mars team."

How is the Moon, a location just as distant from Mars as Earth is, and subject to much the same launch windows, of any special benefit to Mars re-supply?

David:

"The mission to return to the moon only makes sense if it's prime focus is to extract Helium-3 for fusion based power plants."

How can that possibly be, when we don't have commercial fusion reactors yet, and n clear idea of when we will? Other than the small amount needed for research devices, who is going to buy it?

Josh:

"The Shuttle represents probably the worse way to economically move equipment and crews into orbit."

Surely you aren't suggesting that going back to ballistic capsules launched on expendables is a step forward?

Chet:

"For a start, we need a truly reusable space vehicle. I would envision a goal of a possible turnaround time of a few days instead of several months."

You sir, however, are absolutely correct. The Shuttle is not bad because it's a (mostly) RLV, it's only a poor implementation of a good idea.

Josh:

"A separate branch of NASA should focus on working with the CERN laboratory in Geneva to attempt to perfect fusion generators. Not only will this revolutionize energy production on a global scale, it will pave the way to more powerful Ion drives or even direct fusion propulsion for spacecraft."

When CERN demonstrates a self-sustaining fusion reactor, *then* NASA (remember, it's an aeronautics and space agency) could take some interest. Not before. Just as the old NERVA program was carried out well after basic fission reactor technology was demonstrated. Not before.

The other Josh:

"We should not focus on the destination for our space efforts. We need to focus on the space access infrastructure. If NASA should do any one thing in the immediate future they should build and loft a fuel depot into orbit. Private launch companies could then be contracted to lift propellant to the fuel depot. The economic principle of amortization of costs will take over and begin to drive down the costs of launch. The more you fly the cheaper it gets. The more fuel you have in orbit the more your launch weight margins can be allocated to actual hardware instead of fuel volume. The more hardware you get to orbit the more people you need to get up their to orbital assembly. Once you've mastered orbital assembly you can then assemble adequate vehicles for exploration of the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. The ISS doesn't count since it is the wrong orbit launch anything beyond Earth orbit."

You, too, are absolutely correct.

Louis:

"The Orbiter is a proven space craft that can be reconfigured to act as a Lunar Transfer Shuttle. Remove the wings, landing gear and tail plus the other Avionic gear and you have the perfect vehicle to travel between the earth and the moon."

You've taken a known quantity and radically changed it into something that has to be 'proven' all over again. It would make more sense to base an LTV on space station modules, than to do that.

Jean:

"Anti Matter drive is practical...and on the Horizon..."

Antimatter's fine...if you know haow to produce it in signifigant quantites, economically. We can say something about how we might (read some of the works of the late Robert Forward), but it's like fusion in that we don't have it now, or soon.

Ross:

"I would wonder where the human race would be today if 40-50 years ago the space race was ended and an international effort was mounted. A kind of world-wide Manhatten Project for the good of the world. I wonder where we will be in 40 years if it would be done today? But, due to idiocy, testosterone, and short-sightedness. It's not likely to happen, is it?"

Nor should it. Unless you like herding cats. If you think politics plays too much of a role now, just try to get everyone together and agreeing on policy and engineering on a scale like that.

Some degree of competition is a good thing, espically if you want results in something less than geologic time....

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:54 PM)

I think back to the excitement of the missions to the moon. These events have great impact on young minds. Forget the moon right now. It's time to aim for Mars and deep space. Let's generate that needed excitement back into the space program.

D. Millinoff, Windsor, ON Canada (Sent Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:05 PM)

Frank Glover wrote (11/18, 1754), "If you think politics plays too much of a role now, just try to get everyone together and agreeing on policy and engineering on a scale like that.

Some degree of competition is a good thing, espically if you want results in something less than geologic time.... "

Politics is only such a problem when governments are in it. I don't know that scientists are all that political. Same(ish) with the competition. It motivates governments to provide their science teams with the resources they need. I think once it gets to the teams they'll take it as far as they can for the satisfaction of doing it. Accomplishing the thing is a much better reward than winning. The best case, imo, is a multinational board of directors who are motivated by the science and couldn't give a rip about what each of their governments' want (they're paid by the project, not their government) and each nation pays in to support the great effort or pays more for their own pos program. If we could spend $X to be part of a solar system wide program or $2X for our own NEO program where do you think our money would go?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:34 AM)

"Orion will be a great program. The design is revolutionary."

Um, what's 'revolutionary' about people in ballistic capsules on expendable launchers? Even its supporters have described it as 'Apollo on steroids.'

Show me an RLV (even a small one) that can go to orbit daily (or more), with not much more effort to turnaround between flights as a commercial aircraft...

Show me an Earth orbit to Lunar and/or Mars orbit ship using some form of nuclear-thermal and/or nuclear-electric propulsion, that can also make the trip again at the next launch window, after Earth orbital refueling and servicing...

...And *then* I will show you 'revolutiuonary.'

Or maybe what a good spaceship simply ought to be.

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:37 PM)

Some degree of competition is a good thing, espically if you want results in something less than geologic time.... "

"Politics is only such a problem when governments are in it."

AS long as space flight has to be mostly government supported, there will be politics and policy issues. The stem cell research issue is perhaps the biggest example.

"I don't know that scientists are all that political."

Why not? They're as human as anyone else. And again, if their area of study has political implications, they'll almost have to be.

"Same(ish) with the competition. It motivates governments to provide their science teams with the resources they need. I think once it gets to the teams they'll take it as far as they can for the satisfaction of doing it. Accomplishing the thing is a much better reward than winning."

Not always. Even scientists like to accomplish whatever it is *first.* The race (and it was) among some researchers to determine the structure of DNA, and identify the AIDS virus are some examples. Particle physicists (or at least their teams) want very much to be the first to demonstrate the existence of an unknown particle that a theory predicts.

And sometimes it extends outside of ethical behavior into outright scientific fraud, as that recent Korean geneticist seems to have done.

The restraing factor is that scientists can destroy their careers if they destroy their reputations.

"The best case, imo, is a multinational board of directors who are motivated by the science and couldn't give a rip about what each of their governments' want (they're paid by the project, not their government)"

Which really doesn't change what I said. It still may not change their personal wish to succeed in such a way as to bring status and glory to their particular governments and/or themselves.

"...and each nation pays in to support the great effort or pays more for their own pos program. If we could spend $X to be part of a solar system wide program or $2X for our own NEO program where do you think our money would go?"

Would it be spent as efficently? ISS went through too many design cycles by itself, greatly increasing its cost beyond the originally estimated $8 billion US. I don't see a massive international program as being any better. Diffferent nations will have different engineering philosophies and capabilites (this is why, for example, Apollo and Soyuz don't look alike). Britain and France almost couldn't stay together to develop Concorde. The more equal-voice 'partners' in the decision process, the slower and less efficent it will tend to be. And the more it will tend toward becoming the very self-perpetuating bureaucracy we want to avoid.

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:00 PM)

Frank,
True enough. I do think it's an altogether different type of competition. And I think most of the competition you're talking about is based on governments being involved. I'm talking about governments enabling a scientific team by writing a check and then backing off. Also just the one team, more or less. Particle physics pits lab against lab. What I'm talking about would be more like one lab. You can still see some competition, but not the space race. And how many design cycles would ISS have gone through without bureaucrats? Can't argue against the lone crusader trying to make a name, I also can't say that will exist less because the world has eight different programs. And 90% of what those those eight do is the same, just done and paid for eight different times. In that respect yes, I do think it would be more cost effective. But your points are well taken. Maybe I just hope people would be better than experience dictates. Not my usual MO.

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Friday, November 21, 2008 6:53 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG