posted 12-04-2006 01:57 PM               

quote:

---

NASA on Monday unveiled the initial elements of the Global Exploration Strategy and a proposed U.S. lunar architecture, two critical tools for achieving the nation's vision of returning humans to the moon.

NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale, who is guiding the long-term strategy development effort among 14 of the world's space agencies, said, "This strategy will enable interested nations to leverage their capabilities and financial and technical contributions, making optimum use of globally available knowledge and resources to help energize a coordinated effort that will propel us into this new age of discovery and exploration."

The Global Exploration Strategy focuses on two overarching issues: Why we are returning to the moon and what we plan to do when we get there. The strategy includes a comprehensive set of the reasons for embarking upon human and robotic exploration of the moon. NASA's proposed lunar architecture focuses on a third issue: How humans might accomplish the mission of exploring the moon.

In April 2006, NASA initiated development of the Global Exploration Strategy in order to meet a congressional mandate, as well as to accomplish goals outlined in the agency's strategic plan and the Vision for Space Exploration. The strategy is evolving from a lengthy dialogue among more than 1,000 individuals, including experts from NASA and 13 other space agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and commercial interests. Experts from the Australian, Canadian, Chinese, European, French, German, British, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Russian, South Korean and Ukrainian space agencies participated.

NASA planners used the international group's deliberations as well as input from academia, private sector and private citizens as the basis for sketching a U.S. blueprint for a return to the moon. NASA's Lunar Architecture Team, chartered in May 2006, concluded that the most advantageous approach is to develop a solar-powered lunar base and to locate it near one of the poles of the moon. With such an outpost, NASA can learn to use the moon's natural resources to live off the land, make preparations for a journey to Mars, conduct a wide range of scientific investigations and encourage international participation.

"The architecture work has resulted in an understanding of what is required to implement and enable critical exploration objectives," said Doug Cooke, deputy associate administrator, Exploration Systems Directorate. "This is all important as we continue the process we have begun and better define the architecture and our various exploration roles in what is a very exciting future for the United States and the world."

As currently envisioned, an incremental buildup would begin with four-person crews making several seven-day visits to the moon until their power supplies, rovers and living quarters are operational. The first mission would begin by 2020. These would be followed by 180-day missions to prepare for journeys to Mars.

The proposed lunar architecture calls for robotic precursor missions designed to support the human mission. These precursors include landing site reconnaissance, natural resource assays and technology risk reduction for the human lander.

Moving into 2007, NASA will continue to refine its lunar architecture, maintaining the open dialogue initiated in 2006, to enhance further the Global Exploration Strategy. NASA's goal is to enable a sustainable space exploration effort in which participating organizations can achieve individual goals with mutually beneficial results.

Both the Global Exploration Strategy and NASA's lunar architecture will be discussed in depth at the second Space Exploration Conference, Dec. 4-6, at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston.

---

posted 12-05-2006 09:31 AM               

A little while back, I had a discussion with someone about whether NASA should explore several sites (including possibly revisiting an Apollo site) before eventually settling on one area for long-term development, or whether they should focus on building an infrastructure in one location from the beginning.

I preferred the latter, and was pleased with the announcement.

What were your thoughts?

posted 12-05-2006 09:47 AM               

However, once you've gone elsewhere, the question then becomes what do you do? The "pre-Phase A" design of the LSAM (shared yesterday) maximizes delivery of payload to the Moon and minimizes return, which means sample return on the scale of the latter Apollo missions might not be possible [Orion too has mass limits].

posted 12-05-2006 12:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
... focused too much on preparing for Mars and not enough on setting up a permanent human settlement on the Moon ...

---

Could you elucidate on that?

posted 12-05-2006 12:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidH:
Could you elucidate on that?

---

There's a bias I've noticed from those who were alive to witness the moon landings — both from professionals and enthusiasts — of a "been there, done that" approach to the Moon. As if six missions and 842 pounds of moon rock was all that we needed to move on with our lives. I can easily see why that trapping exists, but I disagree with it. Perhaps in part because I wasn't able to watch any of the dozen men step and leap upon the lunar surface, I (and others of my generation who are equally inclined) see the Moon much more as unconquered territory than familiar stomping ground.

posted 12-05-2006 12:21 PM               

My specific point of curiosity was this, though: I understand how a focus on surface-hab engineering/infrastructure/lessons-learned approach to learning to live on the moon as a step toward living on Mars would cut into potential lunar exploration. But my initial impression was that focus would support setting up a permanent human settlement on the moon, rather than detract from it, so I was curious why you saw the two as competitive, rather than complementary, goals.

posted 12-05-2006 02:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidH:
OK, I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about this.

What were your thoughts?

---

Because I've read Aviation Week for 20 years (I stopped)and I've seen so many of those that never went further than mere discussions/debates, or nice artist impressions of a could-be future, or things that never left the drawing board.
I'm still apalled about the attention this thing got: even the French networks talked about it (pointing some interesting issue like how do you protect crews from solar eruptions radiation?) tonight. We can't barely get our butt off the ground...so I'm extremely sceptical about this. It sounds like if you were talking about Concorde to the Wright brothers.
I understand, however, that the future has to be prepared, in view of the shuttle fleet retirement and the end of the ISS...but I wonder if NASA's going to get the money for it.

posted 12-05-2006 04:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidH:
But my initial impression was that focus would support setting up a permanent human settlement on the moon, rather than detract from it, so I was curious why you saw the two as competitive, rather than complementary, goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
I understand, however, that the future has to be prepared, in view of the shuttle fleet retirement and the end of the ISS...but I wonder if NASA's going to get the money for it.

---

Consider the Voyager probes: in their heyday, they served a great purpose, furthering our knowledge of the outer solar system. Today, they are still contributing science, boldly going where no man(ned made craft) has gone before, but each year we hear about the budget battles to keep staffing and resources available to keep tracking the Voyagers. They are deemed expendable because our goals have changed.

My concern with the Global Exploration Strategy and resulting lunar architecture is that from the start we are stressing goals that are finite and reachable. If our intention is to build a lunar base to learn how to operate on Mars, then presumably at some point we will gain that knowledge. Then what? Do we abandon the Moon in favor of Mars?

Precedence would suggest yes. Consider the ISS. It was intended from its start as a platform to prepare humans for living and working in space beyond low Earth orbit. And now that we are in the early stages of making such a transition, what becomes of the ISS? Based on the current manifest, after three Orion test flights, we cease going there. Sure, we may continue to launch crew members on Soyuz and perhaps a COTS solution will enable a commercial transportation system, but for budgeting purposes, the U.S. is planning to be more or less done with the ISS in 2015.

My concern is that we will adopt the same approach towards the Moon. That after investing the time, work and money to build an outpost, our goals will dictate we go elsewhere. And while I have nothing against going to Mars, as I stated earlier, I'd rather see us colonize our nearest neighbor first, if not in tandem.

posted 12-05-2006 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Danno:
I was reading that David Portree, a former NASA historian had stated that the cost of building and maintaining a lunar base would far exceed that of the ISS. Even after it is built the costs would probably be too high to support both a lunar base and Mars exploration.

---

If Robert's interpretation is correct, NASA wouldn't be supporting both a lunar base and a Mars exploration program. Just as with Shuttle and ISS, the intention could be to use the lunar base to acquire desired experience, then turn it over to someone else (commercial? foreign?) or even abandon it and devote all resoiurces to Mars program.