NASA Moon Plan No Go

[FSTargetDrone]

Story:

Sep 8, 5:53 PM EDT

Obama space panel says moon return plan is a no go

By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.

The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current $18 billion annual budget.

"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The report gives options to President Barack Obama, but said NASA's current plans have to change. Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.

All those deadlines have to change, the panel said. Space exploration would work better by including other countries and private for-profit firms, the panel concluded.

The panel had previously estimated that the current plan would cost $100 billion in spending to 2020.

Former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern said the report showed the harsh facts that NASA's space plans had "a mismatch between resources and rhetoric." Now, he said, Obama faces a choice of "essentially abandoning human spaceflight" or paying the extra money.

The panel, chaired by retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, includes executives, scientists and ex-astronauts. It posted a summary report Tuesday on both White House and NASA web sites.

NASA can't get beyond low-Earth orbit without spending more, but space travel with astronauts is important, the panel found. That will cost an extra $3 billion a year and is "unquestionably worth it," Crawley said.

The question is where to go.

The Bush plan was to go to the moon, which would serve as a training ground for flights to Mars. The Augustine panel agreed Mars is the ultimate goal, but said going to the moon first is only one option and not the preferred one. Instead, the panel emphasized what it called a "flexible path" of exploring near-Earth objects such as asteroids, the moons of Mars, and then landing on the moon after other exploration.

"There's a lot of places in the neighborhood," Crawley said. "In fact, going to the moon is more difficult than going to a near-Earth object."

The panel also said the space shuttle should continue flying until early 2011 to finish all its space station work and that it can't realistically retire by Oct. 1, 2010 as the Bush administration planned.

The panel called "unwise" the Bush plan to shut down the space station in 2015 and steer it into the ocean, after 25 years of construction and only five years of fully operational life. The space station's life should be extended, the panel said.

Once the shuttles are grounded, it could be another six to seven years before the United States has its own transportation into space, the panel estimates. That's because it will take a few years to build and test the new Ares rocket. In the meantime, NASA will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz.

The panel also urged NASA to pay private companies to develop spaceships to ferry astronauts to the space station and low-Earth orbit. That may be riskier, but it would free up NASA to explore elsewhere, the panel said. Elon Musk, chief executive officer of SpaceX, said within a few years he could send astronauts to space for about $20 million a person, less than the $50 million Russia is charging. He hopes to launch his private rocket, Falcon 9, later this year or early next.

NASA should encourage other countries to join the U.S. in exploring space beyond Earth orbit, the panel said.

"If after designing cleverly, building alliances with partners and engaging commercial providers, the nation cannot afford to fund the effort to pursue the goals it would like to embrace, it should accept the disappointment of setting lesser goals," the report said.

The panel outlined Obama's options. In two cases, the federal government could choose not to spend extra money on exploration and thus wouldn't go to the moon or anywhere new in the next couple decades. The other plans involve spending more money.

The panel suggested that if NASA continues its current moon plans, to save money it should kill plans to make a smaller Ares I rocket to carry astronauts and go right to the bigger Ares V.

Other variations of going to moon plan could rely on a version of the space shuttle system that would use the boosters and external tank with a capsule attached.

NASA already has spent $7.7 billion on its current moon plan, including the design and construction of new rockets. The Ares I has a test of its key first stage scheduled for later this week and an overall test launch scheduled for Halloween.

---

On the Net

The report:

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_rel ... forweb.pdf

The panel:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html

[RedImperator]

A manned mission to an NEA could well be more interesting than a return to the moon. There's a lot of economic potential in the NEAs, and unlike the moon, they have water in the form of hydrated minerals.

[Darth Yoshi]

I'm surprised that going to the moon is harder than to an asteroid. Perhaps because of gravity and its effects on fuel requirements?

[Samuel]

I'm surprised that going to the moon is harder than to an asteroid. Perhaps because of gravity and its effects on fuel requirements?

You need a lander. They are extra weight and cost. Of course for asteroids, how far are we talking?

[Darth Yoshi]

Wouldn't you need a lander for asteroids, too? I can't imagine flying all the out to an asteroid and not walking around. So, I was thinking that a return module would need less fuel to escape from an asteroid.

[The Romulan Republic]

A manned mission to an NEA could well be more interesting than a return to the moon. There's a lot of economic potential in the NEAs, and unlike the moon, they have water in the form of hydrated minerals.

Agreed one hundred percent. Looks like the panel gave some good advice, though faced with an unavoidable choice between ""essentially abandoning human spaceflight" or paying the extra money" (to quote the article), I'm not at all confident that Obama will make the smarter and costlier (in the short term at least) choice.

Ideally they'll ditch the Moon return for now and go for the targets with the greatest social, scientific, and economic value (ie Mars, NEAs). I'm a supporter of the Mars Society and the "Mars Direct" plan, so such a change in priorities would be for the best as far as I'm concerned.

[Alyeska]

Wouldn't you need a lander for asteroids, too? I can't imagine flying all the out to an asteroid and not walking around. So, I was thinking that a return module would need less fuel to escape from an asteroid.

Asteroid gravity is marginal compared to the moon. The command module can land itself on the asteroid.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't think it's that trivial. To go to an asteriod with a human crew is hard. You have no sling shot effect to play with, and you have to carry enough fuel for the acceleration back.

Thus far, we have only sent ion engine probes to a new by asteroid or comet, and it was largely a one way trip.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I don't think it's that trivial. To go to an asteriod with a human crew is hard. You have no sling shot effect to play with, and you have to carry enough fuel for the acceleration back.

Thus far, we have only sent ion engine probes to a new by asteroid or comet, and it was largely a one way trip.

The asteroids that we have probed, to date, and the asteroids that we'd send manned missions to are not one in the same. The asteroids we've flown past, or sent probes to, have been either main belt (Stardust, Galileo, Rosetta, and Dawn) or Mars-crossers and Amor (NEAR Shoemaker, Deep Space 1, and Hayabusa.) We'd be interested in Earth-crossers passing within a few million kilometers of Earth. A manned mission to one of those would take no more than 60 to 90 days to complete. (Boost from Earth, cruise for a while, spend a couple of weeks on the asteroid, point back towards Earth, and essentially fall back towards Earth . . . Earth will catch up with, and run over the spacecraft.)

Lunar missions are much more energetically costly to pull off than missions to near-Earth asteroids. A spacecraft headed towards the Moon has to provide enough boost to enter cis-lunar space, headed for the moon. Then they have to slow down enough to be captured into a lunar orbit. Then they have to provide enough boost to enter cis-lunar space, headed back for Earth.

As for a manned asteroid mission, you don't have to go, then stop, like you do with a lunar mission. You just provide enough boost to carry you out on an orbit where you intercept the asteroid while carrying similar velocity (which, incidentally, is about the velocity you need to escape Earth to begin with. Which already means you've saved the cost of slowing down to be captured by the Moon.) Then you ride the asteroid for a bit as it closes in on Earth, and hop off to fall back towards Earth as Earth's orbit is carrying it towards you (saving the cost of having to achieve lunar escape velocity.)

The primary challenge behind a manned asteroid mission is providing adequate radiation shielding and stores for the crew while they're on their 90 day mission.

[ThomasP]

The primary challenge behind a manned asteroid mission is providing adequate radiation shielding

Would this need to be substantially different from the shielding on the Apollo missions?

If so, what kind of problems would the longer mission represent and what costs would they potentially be looking at?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Lunar missions are much more energetically costly to pull off than missions to near-Earth asteroids. A spacecraft headed towards the Moon has to provide enough boost to enter cis-lunar space, headed for the moon. Then they have to slow down enough to be captured into a lunar orbit. Then they have to provide enough boost to enter cis-lunar space, headed back for Earth.

However, that does not relate to real costs (as in money). With the Ares V it would be fairly easy to get Lunar orbit and back. Heck, the Soviets nearly did it despite their shoestring budget and infighting back in the 1960s, and could have done it if it had not been a moot point after Apollo 8 & 11. As Samuel noted, it is the landing part that makes return to the Moon costly, as well as staying there for a considerable amount of time. To repeat the Apollo 15-17 three day visits would be pointless. The latter objective needs a bigger lander than the Apollo LM.

As for the Ares I: both Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy could replace it for LEO missions and even at this point of development it would probably be much cheaper to human rate either one of them than complete the Ares I development. From those two Delta IV Heavy is probably the better choice. Of course that might make the Ares V a little more expensive to produce, since there would be no Ares I production.

[Zixinus]

Interesting news and another showcase how the Bush administration turned everything it touched to shit.

Somehow I knew that is was just hot air. There was a reason why the Apollo missions ended and that was cost.

The panel called "unwise" the Bush plan to shut down the space station in 2015 and steer it into the ocean, after 25 years of construction and only five years of fully operational life.

Bush's plans unwise? Bush's plans were to shit on decades of international project just for... what exactly? For some delusion of a space race for the sake of political nostalgia?

Ah, how typical.

[PeZook]

Well, your little Iraq adventure could've paid for several manned Moon programs by itself

A manned mission to one of those would take no more than 60 to 90 days to complete. (Boost from Earth, cruise for a while, spend a couple of weeks on the asteroid, point back towards Earth, and essentially fall back towards Earth . . . Earth will catch up with, and run over the spacecraft.)

It's very nontrivial to provide enough stores and comfort for the crew to last for 90 days. You would save some fuel (though that's debatable: course corrections along the way may just as well eat into the savings), but instead of providing two weeks worth of food, water and oxygen you'd need six weeks. This also means more reactants for fuel cells (for power), bigger cabin space, better radiation shielding (Apollo's shielding was good enough to protect the craft with mild solar activity - IIRC, a long-endurance craft would need a shielded compartment for the crew to hide in during spikes)...and, of course, the Moon is right there, while NEOs follow all sorts of orbits, and may be totally unreachable for much of their journey across the solar system.

[dragon]

Hum so looks like the Chinese manned moon expedition will beat us there this time. Plus the ESA moon mission and the Japanese Moon mission. So we get to fall further behind.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hum so looks like the Chinese manned moon expedition will beat us there this time. Plus the ESA moon mission and the Japanese Moon mission. So we get to fall further behind.

If you want to make it a question of national pride, skipping the Moon will be well worth it, if it gets the US to Mars first. After all, American astronauts have already been to the Moon...

[dragon]

Hum so looks like the Chinese manned moon expedition will beat us there this time. Plus the ESA moon mission and the Japanese Moon mission. So we get to fall further behind.

If you want to make it a question of national pride, skipping the Moon will be well worth it, if it gets the US to Mars first. After all, American astronauts have already been to the Moon...

Exactly we've already been there, so it's not like they have to develop new technologies. Almost every aspect of our technology is more advance than the first moon mission yet we have a hard time getting back.

[Commander 598]

Ahaha, Mars.

[Duckie]

Actually, we would. We'd still need to rebuild a new Ares 5 or similar launch vessel from scratch, since I imagine if the F-14s can no longer be built then by now 1970s spacecraft production capability has been lost.

It's the same reason why we can't produce a WWI Battleship in short order despite it being well within our technology.

[dragon]

Actually, we would. We'd still need to rebuild a new Ares 5 or similar launch vessel from scratch, since I imagine if the F-14s can no longer be built then by now 1970s spacecraft production capability has been lost.

It's the same reason why we can't produce a WWI Battleship in short order despite it being well within our technology.

Actually not.

In 2005 NASA chose a Low Earth Orbit
(LEO) strategy for the lunar missions. One of the benefits
of this strategy was that it avoided the need to develop
an extremely large and expensive rocket capable of launching
a mission to the moon.
The LEO rendezvous strategy instead allows NASA to
develop two smaller rockets using heritage Space Shuttle
hardware. One of these rockets will be a Cargo Launch Vehicle
(CaLV) that will carry an Earth Departure Stage (EDS)
and a Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). The other
rocket will be a Human Rated Launch Vehicle (CLV) that
will loft the crew exploration vehicle into LEO

from link
The Idea NASA had was a type of shuttle that goes from the ISS to moon and back. This way NASA would not have to retool their manufacturing capabilities to make old obsolete heavy lift vehicles. Instead the ISS would be an assembly and supply point from which the a type of shuttle and lander can leave. As you can see from the chart below getting to LEO where the ISS is is half the total energy requirement that is needed to get to the moon.



[url=ttp://www.permanent.com/t-theory.htm]link[/url]

[ThomasP]

Just fire up an Orion and be done with it

On a serious note, this is definitely not the route I'd hoped to see the manned space program taking.

In real terms there seems to be little chance of us ever setting up a permanent off-world presence, let alone going to another star. Realizing the hard realities behind space flight is a lot more depressing than the sci-fi of my upbringing led me to believe.

[Zixinus]

Sadly, the current economical climate does not bode for the sake of getting people on another planet in a hurry.

I'm might be a bit out of my depth here, but I think that the whole space program thing has to be rethought a bit. Most agencies nowadays are working together and the ISS is still up. Perhaps an united, pooled unit that permanently encompasses all the agencies out there so there, would be pool resources into one set of projects?

What I'm sure that it definitely needs to stop being the wanker toy for politicians. I'm fairly certain that you can't run any complex engineering project as this when you're budget and plans are fucked around by politicians all the time. Something needs to be done to prevent this sort of tempering.

[Alyeska]

Hum so looks like the Chinese manned moon expedition will beat us there this time. Plus the ESA moon mission and the Japanese Moon mission. So we get to fall further behind.

I get tired of people saying that "China will beat the US to the Moon". Come on people, we've already been there. Getting back to the moon before China? Did that too. Apollo 12. Game over, geeze. We have other things to do.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Sadly, the current economical climate does not bode for the sake of getting people on another planet in a hurry.

I'm might be a bit out of my depth here, but I think that the whole space program thing has to be rethought a bit. Most agencies nowadays are working together and the ISS is still up. Perhaps an united, pooled unit that permanently encompasses all the agencies out there so there, would be pool resources into one set of projects?

The problem is that due to cold war legacy space programs are still very much national projects. There has been some co-operation lately, in part because the collapse of the Soviet Union practically forced the Russians to seek partners, and on the other hand because the ISS and unmanned probes really are not something that exites ordinary people too much or invokes huge patriotic sentiments. So co-operation has been relatively easy politically. Really big and potentially groundbreaking projects like return to the moon or a manned mission to Mars are a different matter altogether. Many people feel that if we can't do it alone, it should not be done at all. A shared glory is less than half the glory. The Chinese moon program for example has clearly nationalistic objectives and so does GWB's answer to it.

What Obama and future US presidents have to consider is to what degree the US wants to maintain the public perception of being the number one space-faring nation. In reality China going to the moon and the US doing nothing would not make China more advanced or on par with the US in space technology, but it might change the public perception. Manned missions do not happen because of scientic reasons and never have. Also for commercial development of space tech and industry projects Earth orbit is plenty.

What I'm sure that it definitely needs to stop being the wanker toy for politicians. I'm fairly certain that you can't run any complex engineering project as this when you're budget and plans are fucked around by politicians all the time. Something needs to be done to prevent this sort of tempering.

There can be no manned exploration of space without politics and political aims, at least for now. Unlike with European sea exploration between years 1400 and 1800, there is nothing beyond Earth orbit that could give rapid economic gains. That might change in the future, but currently private projects are just trying to get to the LEO and it will probably take more than a century before privately funded interplanetary exploration becomes feasible.

[dragon]

Hum so looks like the Chinese manned moon expedition will beat us there this time. Plus the ESA moon mission and the Japanese Moon mission. So we get to fall further behind.

I get tired of people saying that "China will beat the US to the Moon". Come on people, we've already been there. Getting back to the moon before China? Did that too. Apollo 12. Game over, geeze. We have other things to do.

Dude I was trying to be a smart ass. I failed I know. Honesty I feel the same about people saying that the Chinese will be us there. THen when I point out we beat them by over 40 years, they go "why then is it so hard to go back."

Hum maybe since Bush broke the US economy with the stupid war perhaps NASA should go into the advertisement business and place sign on the shuttle that can be rented. And yes I being sarcastic.

[PeZook]

I hate smartasses who say "If we really did land on the Moon, how come we can't get back?"

Because recreating massive launch vehicles built for the specific purpose of getting a man to the Moon is real easy, like. After all, in Starcraft when you research battlecruisers, you can always build them in the future, right?

Goddamned wankers. What's worse, apparently, plenty of Americans think this is a serious argument.