WP:NASA Awaits Word on Where It Is Going Next

[JMS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/04/AR2009040402642.html

NASA Awaits Word on Where It Is Going Next

By Joel Achenbach

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, April 5, 2009; Page A05

NASA has a space station, three space shuttles, two moon rockets under development, a fleet of robotic space probes, dozens of satellites, tens of thousands of employees and a budget that is creeping toward $20 billion a year. What it needs is a boss.

And one more thing, maybe: a mission that satisfies the new president of the United States.

A respected civil servant, Christopher Scolese, has been serving as acting NASA administrator since the departure on Jan. 20 of Michael D. Griffin. The Obama White House has twice been on the verge of making a formal nomination for a new head of the space agency but has pulled back both times because of grumbling from members of Congress with influence over space policy.

[88Comrade2000]

NASA will be disbanded. Obama will only focus on the earth.

[JMS]

NASA will be disbanded. Obama will only focus on the earth.

Obama has already committed to returning to the moon in 2020. The US space agency has struggled mightly under the yoke of the Space shuttle. It's 10 times more expensive to fly and maintain than single use vehicles, and now that it's almost 12 years after the shuttles original life expectancy it's not even reliable at that price.

The big question isn't will Obama continue to support NASA, the US is too dependant upon space not too. The big question is whether Obama will allow NASA to spend money on a Mars mission. To go where we haven't gone before, to actually make progress in manned space exploration and stop redoing what we've first accomplished 50 years ago. That's the Question.

China and Russia have already announced they are going to go to Mars. Will the US go too, or will we fall behind in the technology of the 21st century.

[88Comrade2000]

Other than military needs, the govt. can no longer pay for space.

The private sector can take care of our space interests and commercialize it.

I read somewhere that Obama was thinking of changing NASA focus from space to studying the Earth for envirnomental reasons. Use NASA in the environment focus Obama wants.

[G-Prime]

A lot of people will ***** and complain about us spending money to go to Mars, what they don't realize is that during the mission to moon era, so many technologies that are cutting edge today, were spawned from the research done to get us to the moon.. The ingenuity and imagination required to get us to Mars can only lead to go things for us.

[Larry]

I'd much rather see us focus on expanding our space capabilities.

IMO, a permanent lunar base and permanent orbital base, (with the ability to expand so that it can then serve as a base from which missions to other places in orbit can be run), would much better serve those needs. (And give us a lot of technologies that we'd need, to get to Mars, anyway.)

I don't see us discovering anything on Mars that will be valuable enough to be worth the costs of shipping it back to Earth. In short, it would be simply another "look what we can do (once)" mission.

By building a permanent, mostly self-sustaining capability, in orbit and on the Moon, we develop the same spinoff technologies as a Mars missions, but when we're done, we actually have capabilities that we can use elsewhere.

They're more along the lines of "infrastructure".

[mjah]

I'd love to see a Mars mission someday. But the only real reason to go there is to put human eyes to the question, "Is/was there life here, and if so, what is it like?"

That discovery wouldn't obviate religion or make everyone stumble around in wide-eyed awe that we aren't alone. But it would be one of the most important discoveries in human history.

But is it worth $trillions to make that discovery now, rather than to send robots to do the job incrementally at vastly reduced cost? I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure it even has to happen when I'm alive. If the proper time for a 10% definitive answer to the Mars life question is only realized during my kids' retirement years, then so be it. Today there's no substitute for having humans performing certain space exploration tasks. I'm not convinced that this will always be the case. Maybe hostile, dangerous Mars should remain the domain of robotic explorers for the next half-century or more.

China and Russia aren't going to get there before us, by the way. Russia has zero capability for such a vast expenditure and China is screwing around in low Earth orbit doing what they do best: copying everyone else's technology to duplicate the past successes of other nations.

I can see the Moon being a nice place to locate more robotics. I can see a limited role for humans there. I can even see solar power generation (although I think an orbiting platform would be a much more forgiving environment for it). But as a stepping stone to Mars, the Moon is less useful than many people seem to think. You can't use the same space suits, the same equipment, etc. between the Moon and Mars because the environments are every bit as different as the Moon vs. Earth. So the idea of "practicing" on the Moon for a Mars trip has a value that's more limited than one might initially believe.

Now, you can test automated critical systems there, to see how they perform long-term without any help from folks on Earth. That would be a very useful contribution to a Mars mission. Of course, you don't necessarily have to have a whole bunch of humans on the Moon to get that done. You might not need any at all.

The more I think about this stuff, the more I realize that the only real reason to keep humans in space is for those first incremental baby steps toward someday (hundreds of years or more in the future) using completely different technologies -- and potentially completely different humans -- to travel far and wide out there. Starting now will make that day happen earlier. But we're going to see little to no massively obvious short-term return on any of this stuff. We'll get more of the indirect benefits that people are happy to ignore despite their value -- just as we got solid-state circuitry, incredibly brilliant software ideas, and advanced materials and manufacturing processes from the Moon shot and NASA's subsequent work. So we'll benefit tremendously, but not in a way that makes the Moon/Mars efforts so obviously worth it that the average guy on the street stops questioning the cost.

Anyway, bringing this ramble to a close, I just don't see why it's a foregone conclusion that we have to put people on Mars for any reason beyond a new Manifest Destiny. A very, very expensive new Manifest Destiny. And even the Moon seems like an unusual place to keep humans long-term. Helium-3 is a red herring and I haven't heard any serious arguments that it's a great place to do a wide variety of basic science research -- so if it's not power generation, what are we going to do? "Practice" for a mission to a planet that's entirely different in almost every way? I just don't see it.

I like manned space travel and it's important to have something to do, so maybe the real importance of returning to the Moon is a bootstrap effect: Putting humans there long-term now will help us to do a much better job of putting humans there long-term in the future for whatever tasks have become important 50-100 years from now. Maybe that's enough.

[Spec138]

I'd much rather see us focus on expanding our space capabilities.

IMO, a permanent lunar base and permanent orbital base, (with the ability to expand so that it can then serve as a base from which missions to other places in orbit can be run), would much better serve those needs. (And give us a lot of technologies that we'd need, to get to Mars, anyway.)

I don't see us discovering anything on Mars that will be valuable enough to be worth the costs of shipping it back to Earth. In short, it would be simply another "look what we can do (once)" mission.

By building a permanent, mostly self-sustaining capability, in orbit and on the Moon, we develop the same spinoff technologies as a Mars missions, but when we're done, we actually have capabilities that we can use elsewhere.

They're more along the lines of "infrastructure".

I really agree with this and the post above talking about all the technologies we developed. NASA is so underestimated by Americans it's ridiculous.

The only thing about the moon base is we would need to develop some sort of technology to reduce the effect of the sun's radiation, especially when Solar Flares occur.

The problem with going to Mars is very similar.

[Larry]

I really agree with this and the post above talking about all the technologies we developed. NASA is so underestimated by Americans it's ridiculous.

The only thing about the moon base is we would need to develop some sort of technology to reduce the effect of the sun's radiation, especially when Solar Flares occur.

The problem with going to Mars is very similar.

Oh, I could see a lot of overlap between the technology to support a permanent presence on the Moon/orbit and a manned Mars mission.

For example, IMO, the biggest technological hurdle either mission will face will be developing the logistical technology necessary to provide air/food/water sufficient to feed several people for years. If you can figure out a combination of recycling, robotic resupply, grow your own, and bring it with you, that will work for one mission, then it will really help with the other.

OTOH, IMO, the mission of colonizing the Moon is more easily bootstrapped.

A Mars mission has to have everything it needs, on board, when it leaves Earth orbit. (Or a method of in-flight refueling that's reliable enough to gamble several lives on it.)

A Lunar base, however, can be supplied via MREs shipped from Earth, while they build whatever the next step (say, farming their own) is going to be. In addition, if you build a Lunar base by shipping them MREs while they build a farming complex, and something happens to the farming complex, then you can fall back on shipping them MREs, again, until you fix the problem.

An "aw****" on a Mars mission is almost guaranteed fatal.

So, to me, a Lunar base is an easier goal to achieve.

And, if your mission is building a Lunar base, then when you're done, you've got a Lunar base. If your mission is to plant a flag on Mars and come home, than all you've got to show for your billions are bragging rights. (And we've already got those, and they aren't worth much.)

IMO, building bases on the Moon, and in orbit, will allow us to develop the same technologies that a Mars mission would need. But we can build them incrementally, rather than on a mission where everything has to work perfectly the first time. And when we're done, we own a capital investment. A piece of Real Estate, if you will, which can then be used for other missions.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm down with nasa figuring out space travel, I think it's essential for our energy future that we figure out how to fly in space without the use of rockets and other 20th century tech. Let's fly into a blackhole and find out what happens!

I'm not big on Mars. I'd like to see us on the moon as Larry stated.

[PeterMP]

I'd love to see a Mars mission someday. But the only real reason to go there is to put human eyes to the question, "Is/was there life here, and if so, what is it like?"

The more you send to Mars the harder it becomes to determine if any life there is the result of human contamination. Once you send humans, unless they find life on that trip, (assuming a reasonable amount of time between missions), it will be hard to say that life there is independent of humans in subsequent trips, unless it is just very very different.

[Larry]

I've thought of a shorter way to express my positon.

When Moonbase Alpha (and/or Space Station One) has successfully kept six astronauts alive, for five years, without a single resupply mission from Earth, then we will have the technology to send men to Mars.

[JMS]

By building a permanent, mostly self-sustaining capability, in orbit and on the Moon, we develop the same spinoff technologies as a Mars missions, but when we're done, we actually have capabilities that we can use elsewhere.

They're more along the lines of "infrastructure".

Well I believe a semi permanent moonbase is in the works either way. But the question is do you spend money to research and think about what it would take for that semi permanent moonbase to actually help facilitate a mars mission, or not. Currently NASA is forbidden by law to spend any money thinking about Mars. Will Obama lift the shackles off NASA or not. That's the question, I think the only question.. That's the first thing that has to happen before an actual Mars mission is even considered.

[PeterMP]

Well I believe a semi permanent moonbase is in the works either way. But the question is do you spend money to research and think about what it would take for that semi permanent moonbase to actually help facilitate a mars mission, or not. Currently NASA is forbidden by law to spend any money thinking about Mars. Will Obama lift the shackles off NASA or not. That's the question, I think the only question.. That's the first thing that has to happen before an actual Mars mission is even considered.

Ahhh. There were these things called rovers that we sent to Mars and they covered a good bit of the surface of Mars taking pictures and doing different types of analysis.

Did you some how miss them in the news?

[JMS]

I'd love to see a Mars mission someday. But the only real reason to go there is to put human eyes to the question, "Is/was there life here, and if so, what is it like?"

We didn't go to the moon because we wanted to put boots on the ground up there and investigate the dust. We put boots on the ground up there because Russia was planning on doing the same thing, and we didn't want them developing capabilities we couldn't match.

Mars is justified along the same lines. Today telecommunications, micro computers, and aeronautics make up three of our top five exports. The Apolo space missions basically created or revolutionized all of those industries and set us up to be leaders in them for 40 years after we first landed on the moon. To say nothing of the military applications of the new technology wich are also substancial.

If a Mars mission does the same thing for 21st century technoloogy, can we really afford to let Russia and China pioneer that technology alone? That's really the argument.

Do we have the will to maintain our technological advantages or not.

[JMS]

Ahhh. There were these things called rovers that we sent to Mars and they covered a good bit of the surface of Mars taking pictures and doing different types of analysis.

Did you some how miss them in the news?

We're talking manned mars mission here. Not drones.

[JMS]

China and Russia aren't going to get there before us, by the way. Russia has zero capability for such a vast expenditure and China is screwing around in low Earth orbit doing what they do best: copying everyone else's technology to duplicate the past successes of other nations.

From what I've read it's a forgone conclusion that China and Russia will both beat us back to the moon. NASA's problem is it must maintain the Space Shuttle before serious work can be done in recreating the Apolo capabilities. This has given both Russia and China a significant head start in their manned exploration efforts... India and Japan are also going to the moon, not sure on what there time frames are.

I can see the Moon being a nice place to locate more robotics. I can see a limited role for humans there. I can even see solar power generation (although I think an orbiting platform would be a much more forgiving environment for it). But as a stepping stone to Mars, the Moon is less useful than many people seem to think. You can't use the same space suits, the same equipment, etc. between the Moon and Mars because the environments are every bit as different as the Moon vs. Earth. So the idea of "practicing" on the Moon for a Mars trip has a value that's more limited than one might initially believe.

Since we have discovered water on the moon it makes a permanent moon base possible. Water can be used for both fuel and Oxygen.

The more I think about this stuff, the more I realize that the only real reason to keep humans in space is for those first incremental baby steps toward someday (hundreds of years or more in the future) using completely different technologies --

Our capabilities for space have actually regressed over the last 40 years. Basically if you don't use a capability it's rusts, decays, and you quickly loose that capability. Thus to claim you can develop the technology of the future without a manned program runs counter to this demonstrated principle of technology.

Anyway, bringing this ramble to a close, I just don't see why it's a foregone conclusion that we have to put people on Mars for any reason beyond a new Manifest Destiny. A very, very expensive new Manifest Destiny. And even the Moon seems like an unusual place to keep humans long-term. Helium-3 is a red herring and I haven't heard any serious arguments that it's a great place to do a wide variety of basic science research -- so if it's not power generation, what are we going to do? "Practice" for a mission to a planet that's entirely different in almost every way? I just don't see it.

Really you think 20 billion is expensive? I don't think it is when you are talking about what we might miss out on. I think Apollo for example was more risky and more expensive for it's day, and it payed off for the last 50 years.

You think He3 is a red herring? Why so? You know more about that than I, but why do you think potentially the wonder fuel of the 21st century isn't worth the effort?

[PeterMP]

We're talking manned mars mission here. Not drones.

So sending drones to Mars doesn't help us prepare for a manned mission?

http://news.scotsman.com/marsexploration/Mission-to-Mars-seeks-landing.2651690.jp

"Using high-powered telescopic cameras and ground-penetrating radar, it will also scout for landing sites for future missions - possibly manned."

EVERYTHING related to Mars is essentially a build up to sending men there.

[Spec138]

I think a Moon base would be cool, however, it would be kind of useless. We couldn't use it to meet up with the shuttle, seeing as it's about 200k miles from a shuttle's orbit, plus a shuttle can't reach the moon. It would probably give alot good information and research though. I would like to see us go back before the Russians or Chinese but it's been proven by our space agency that slow and steady wins the race.

Once again, Mars would be awesome to get to with a manned mission, but the logistics require much new technology be developed.

[Spec138]

So sending drones to Mars doesn't help us prepare for a manned mission?

http://news.scotsman.com/marsexploration/Mission-to-Mars-seeks-landing.2651690.jp

"Using high-powered telescopic cameras and ground-penetrating radar, it will also scout for landing sites for future missions - possibly manned."

EVERYTHING related to Mars is essentially a build up to sending men there.

As evidence by the race to the Moon, you need to devote yourself to one goal to get somewhere. I'm not saying the probes hurt, but the Russians spent so much effort on probes and such they didn't have the right technology when we were able to reach the Moon.

[mjah]

From what I've read it's a forgone conclusion that China and Russia will both beat us back to the moon.

Links, please.

I've heard China claim 2020. Not sure why anyone, even the Chinese themselves, would actually trust that. If everything works perfectly and they experience zero technical hiccups, and if they have zero internal high-level political squabbles about the expense, and if they continue to have an economy that can sustain the project simultaneously with their massive defense ramp-up over the next 10+ years, then I suppose they'll get there in 2020. Maybe.

...If they are being honest about 2020 in the first place. And 2020 is absolutely the earliest date I've heard. I'm not too worried.

And if they do get there in 2020 -- then so what? They've managed to match what the US did half a century earlier. We'll land a couple of years later with an infrastructure for semi-permanent occupation, whereas they'll be gone in less than a week. I don't see the issue here.

And China's seems like the most credible claim to Moon landing. Russia? They have had trouble operating the Soyuz program without paid tourists footing part of the bill. Japan and India aren't making any credible claims, as far as I can tell. Nothing substantiated.

Since we have discovered water on the moon it makes a permanent moon base possible. Water can be used for both fuel and Oxygen.

And water.

I assume a solar infrastructure would be used to convert water into Hydrogen fuel, etc. Sounds expensive. I'm all for it as long as there's a good reason to put humans on the Moon permanently in the first place.

Our capabilities for space have actually regressed over the last 40 years.

I think a space enthusiast from the late 1960s, given a crystal ball to see what we're up to in 2009, would actually disagree -- simply wondering why we aren't doing more with our vastly improved present-day space capabilities.

For instance, we had zero capability to launch, assemble, and operate a fully-functional space station like the ISS in the 1960s or early 1970s. Much of the technology and general knowledge flying on and in the ISS simply didn't exist then. Yet we do little of demonstrable value with the ISS except give the Shuttles a somewhat safer place to go.

We had zero capability to engage in the flexible types of launches the Shuttles allow. Deploying satellites, capturing satellites, repairing satellites, upgrading satellites, trucking large numbers of people and cargo simultaneously to the ISS... all impossible back then. Of course, the Shuttles are the most expensive spacecraft ever devised etc... but here they are. We made them so costly, complex and fragile (in certain ways) that we have to retire them completely just to fund a cheaper alternative.

Maybe you're just talking about specs like payload to orbit per launch, in which case we certainly have lost something.

Really you think 20 billion is expensive? I don't think it is when you are talking about what we might miss out on. I think Apollo for example was more risky and more expensive for it's day, and it payed off for the last 50 years.

There is no way a Mars mission would cost as little as $20 billion. That's off be at least an order of magnitude. Constellation alone (without the Mars trip!) is currently running at $44 billion over 20 years, and nobody seems to expect that number to stay that "low." The ISS is over $100 billion after 10 years and it doesn't even leave Earth orbit.

Mars certainly would be far more expensive than either of these. The amount of technology, infrastructure, payload, planning, training, R&D, and engineering that would go into such an effort would be fascinating but also expensive in the extreme.

You think He3 is a red herring? Why so? You know more about that than I, but why do you think potentially the wonder fuel of the 21st century isn't worth the effort?

Large-scale controlled sustainable fusion is probably the most bedeviling basic technical challenge humankind has ever faced. We haven't demonstrated even the easy flavors of it, much less come up with any kind of plan for fusing He-3.

Why not just use a vastly "easier" deuterium-tritium fusion reaction (which we're still decades away from figuring out how to make commercially sustainable)? We already have the fuel right here on Earth, as deuterium can be distilled from seawater and tritium can be bred using Lithium.

You don't get a lot of crazy-ass neutrons during He-3 fusion. That would be a nice feature. But is that worth going to the Moon now for a massive mining operation that may or may not even be worthwhile?

Seems to me that water is the "wonder fuel of the 21st century."

[Spec138]

Just a quibble mjah, but the Salyut space station was launched in 1971.

Also if anyone is interested in this kind of stuff, there's a nice, short book Final Frontier: Voyages Into Outer Space out there.

It's kind of a young adult reading style, but if you don't mind feeling like an idiot for reading it, it has a very nice overview of both the Russian and USA space histories. I bought it on sale for like $2.

[mjah]

The Soviet Union had lots of space stations, but none anywhere near as ambitious as the ISS. Even Mir was a kludgy dump by comparison.

The US dabbled with Skylab in the 1970s, but didn't pursue it like the Soviets did. Those were all tiny systems in comparison with the ISS.

I'm always such a wet blanket in these space threads. Ignore me.

(Please don't actually ignore me.)