Panel says NASA should skip moon, fly elsewhere

[raho]

WASHINGTON – NASA needs to make a major detour on its grand plans to return astronauts to the moon, a special independent panel is telling the White House.

NASA has picked the wrong destination with the wrong rocket, the panel's chairman said Thursday. A test-flight version of the new rocket, Ares, is on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral, awaiting liftoff later this month. NASA should be concentrating on bigger rockets, the panel members said.

Norman Augustine, chairman of the White House-appointed panel reviewing the agency's spaceflight plans, said it makes more sense to land on a nearby asteroid or one of the moons of Mars. He said that could be done sooner than returning to the moon in 15 years as NASA has outlined.

The exploration plans now under fire were pushed by then-President George W. Bush after the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster. The moon-Mars plan lacks enough money, thanks to budget diversions, the panel said in a 155-page report. Starting in 2014, NASA needs an extra $3 billion a year if astronauts are going to travel beyond Earth's orbit, the panel said.

The key is where to explore space. In a report, the panel outlines eight options and leaves the choice to President Barack Obama. Three options are part of what the panel calls a "flexible path" to explore someplace other than the moon, eventually heading to a Mars landing far in the future. Augustine said the flexible path option, which includes no-landing flights around the moon and Mars, makes more sense from both a physics and finance standpoint.

Landing on the moon and then launching back to Earth takes a lot of fuel because of the moon's gravity. Hauling fuel from Earth to the moon and then back costs money.

It would take less fuel to land and return from asteroids or comets that swing by Earth or even the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos, Augustine said.

 

[bigmoneymaker]

if you cannot 100percent assure the successful landing on our lovely moon, then how can you land on tougher place which you have never been to, my smart usa???

 

[Solomon2]

If you want someone to relieve your ignorance, there are politer ways to ask.

 

[Tigershark]

Can NASA Get Its Groove Back?

Remember when space exploration was “groovy” and excitement about seeing humans explore the Solar System within our lifetimes was palpable? What happened to NASA and America’s dream to boldly go? The pathway that assured us that space exploration is cool, amazing and pushes excellence has disappeared, littered instead by U-turns and Stop signs. NASA’s groove was the right stuff. When did vanish? Can we get it back?

America’s rhythm is stalled. Movement in our economy is going the wrong way. Education standards are mediocre. We’re not evolving. We’re not in our groove. And the country feels it.

Is NASA’s dilemma symptomatic of what ails us? “If we could put a man on the Moon..” has become cliché but was the zenith of American exceptionalism. The last time a human walked on the Moon was in December 1972 – 38 years ago next month. NASA has long since stopped getting “free drinks” from the retelling of that decades old conquest. It’s time to light the fire again and do something profound, this time something cumulative and lasting. Conquering the Moon is where we found our groove and if we choose, where we can reclaim it.

NASA languished a year waiting to hear what, where and when their mission would be. They’re still waiting, as NASA ponders how to proceed on the “Flexible Path” to their ultimate goal of Mars. Congress recessed without passing a federal budget for 2011 and NASA is operating under a continuing resolution. Things are certainly flexible.

The latest buzz in the space blogosphere is about the recent midterm election results and subsequent changes in House committees with Republicans in the majority. After these new committee chairs take charge, will they set new priorities? Only time will tell but past statements by those mentioned to fill these positions give some clues. They seem less inclined to “sell the farm,” thereby giving control of U.S. space access to foreign entities. They seem to be cautious about handing the reins of LEO access to commercial start-ups, preferring to have them prove themselves first, while at the same time guaranteeing that NASA retains the infrastructure necessary to assure our national interests in space. Will their priorities for NASA rest more with the agency staying as a national economic and security asset and less as an international outreach program, heavily influenced by Earth science concerns? Much rests on the decisions made and the money appropriated by the incoming Congress.

The current administration’s decision to abandon NASA’s mission of resource utilization on the Moon needs to be revisited. The ability of the United States to routinely access cislunar space through the use of the Moon and its resources needs to be well understood and addressed. We cannot afford to remain complacent about the Moon while other countries move forward to reap the rewards of lunar return. The United States needs to make smart investments that will pay long-term dividends. Lunar return is one of those economic and technological investments.

The majority of the panel of engineers and scientists invited to speak at the recent Space Manufacturing conference meeting at NASA’s Ames Research Center (sponsored by the Space Studies Institute) held the view that lunar mining was the logical next move and that government needed to “prime the pump” and demonstrate that this was possible before private enterprise would follow. We need private sector money to fully pursue the purpose and realize the potential of space exploration. NASA needs to show that resource utilization is possible on the Moon. Once we understand how to access and develop lunar resources, private enterprise will capitalize on these findings. As the door to a sustainable space faring infrastructure finally swings open, the tyranny of the rocket equation will be broken.

It is time for America to find its groove again. It is time to extol the right stuff and pursue goals of national excellence. Setting a goal that may be obtained in 30 years is not a space program. A return to the Moon to learn how to use its resources is achievable using existing technology and within the decade-long timescales demanded by our political process.

Can NASA Get Its Groove Back? | The Once and Future Moon

 

[Tigershark]

I remember hearing Obama cancel the Constellation program back in February and I was flabbergasted. The guy was so smart, so how could he hamstring American space effort like that?

Soon he came under attack by the space community. Instead of taking the advice of experienced engineers and astronauts, Obama strikes back with empty rhetoric like "we've been to the moon before." Excuse me, I wanted to say, but Americans should never have left. They should have continued the Apollo program, set up a scientific outpost, and kept up America's edge in space science and technology. Instead, they wasted away the decades building the space shuttle (which never became the fully reusable space craft as was originally intended), and the international space station (which will have to be decommissioned in a little over 10 years).

I tried to explain this to the people I know and their reaction was "100 billion dollars to return a man to the moon? cancel it."

So there goes the US manned program to return to the moon. And American edge in space technology. I won't have the fun of watching an astronaut walking on the moon again. But then again, this is great news for other countries' space programs. China plans to land a man on the moon between 2020-2030, and India too. These are the countries I will be cheering for. These are the countries who will take the lead in space technology.

Obama's planned trip to an asteroid? That plan is so vague and far in the future that there's no promise it won't be axed by the following administration or just die a quiet death. But then again, what else can you expect when you elect a lawyer to become your president?

 

[DesiGuy]

fly where???????

to hell?????????


wtf nasa is doing?

let's fcking set up moon colony there and than think of going beyond that.

 

[Chogy]

NASA never lost their groove. The U.S. public did, and funding to NASA was cut. People actually got BORED with men walking on the moon.

NASA could return to the moon. It would cost billions, and I personally see little point to it.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

fly where???????

to hell?????????


wtf nasa is doing?

let's fcking set up moon colony there and than think of going beyond that.

I can understand your frustration..

 

[Chogy]

let's fcking set up moon colony there and than think of going beyond that.

What advantage would a moon colony have over assembling a vehicle in orbit instead? Yes there's water on the moon, minerals too. To set up a colony there capable of exploiting those resources would cost more than everything that's been spent on space to this point, put together.

I see more value in Mars rovers and space telescopes like the Hubble, rather than people trying to squeeze water molecules out of dirt that is far drier than the Sahara, even in those areas of the moon that have identifiable water.

 

[no_name]

I don't think US will give up on the moon. It has great strategic importance.

 

[Tigershark]

What advantage would a moon colony have over assembling a vehicle in orbit instead? Yes there's water on the moon, minerals too. To set up a colony there capable of exploiting those resources would cost more than everything that's been spent on space to this point, put together.

I see more value in Mars rovers and space telescopes like the Hubble, rather than people trying to squeeze water molecules out of dirt that is far drier than the Sahara, even in those areas of the moon that have identifiable water.

Stephen Hawking offers his view on the manned vs robotic space exploration debate:
Stephen Hawking: Manned vs Robotic Space Missions?

 

[PakSher]

There is nothing on the moon to see, exploring other venues could help open up more wonders of the universe.

 

[Tigershark]

My personal view is that while a regular manned mission to mars or venus is too costly for today's economy, a regular manned moon mission is more than within the reach of a superpower like the United States or a future power like China. There are several benefits to a manned mission.
1) robots can only be sent with a limited set of equipment, and can only look for what they are programmed to look for. Even a week on the moon will allow an astronaut to do the science of dozens of rovers.
2) It's true that the cost of a manned moon mission today is astronomical--because we have to bring everything with us. But the cost can be driven down over time. We can set up photovotaics to generate electricity. Then use that power to extract water. Then split the water into H2 and O2 and make rocket fuel. Now astronauts can be sent to the moon without water or return fuel. The nation that has the ability to make moon trips cheaply now has a double advantage over the nation that does not even have a moon base.
3) The experience gained in a moon base can be translated into long term missions to other bodies in the solar system--to the asteroids or to mars.

The advantage of a moon base is thus long term. It positions a country at the forefront of space technology. That country is in a better position to compete economically and militarily.

The current US plan to the asteroid and mars, on the other hand, are simply plant-flag, collect-dirt exercises that cost hundreds of billions of dollars. These objectives can be accomplished by robots. So why are they sending humans? The only reason I can think of is publicity.

 

[DesiGuy]

What advantage would a moon colony have over assembling a vehicle in orbit instead? Yes there's water on the moon, minerals too. To set up a colony there capable of exploiting those resources would cost more than everything that's been spent on space to this point, put together.

I see more value in Mars rovers and space telescopes like the Hubble, rather than people trying to squeeze water molecules out of dirt that is far drier than the Sahara, even in those areas of the moon that have identifiable water.

There were plans of going back to moon and setting up colony, but obama cutting budget for this program messed up everything.

if US doesn't have $ to go on moon, than forget mars too. it will cost no less than billion $ to get there.
Now suddenly when obama cancel the constellation program, people started finding faults in it.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

NASA knows about alliens on moon(as per russian claims) thats why they did'nt sended any more manned missions to moon since then...and they will not,,thats why they are skipping this..