posted 06-11-2013 07:58 AM               

Both played important roles in the United States becoming what it is today, but only the Lewis and Clark story still engages the masses as a story of exploration.

posted 06-11-2013 11:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Apollo astronauts in total "explored" little more then fifty linear miles of the lunar surface... Lewis and Clark?

---

Yes, but look at the distance the Apollo missions had to travel before getting to those final 50 miles, or so. L&C and Apollo expeditions were both largely linear in their exploration. Plus, L&C were limited by sticking whenever possible to the waterways although they had scouts roaming around.

Also, both had very specific end goals: land a man on the moon, and discover the northwest passage to the Pacific Ocean. Each had its breakthroughs along the way.

posted 06-11-2013 11:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glint:
Also, both had very specific end goals: land a man on the moon, and discover the northwest passage to the Pacific Ocean. Each had its breakthroughs along the way.

---

posted 06-11-2013 01:34 PM               

• Support research and science aboard the International Space Station through (at least) 2020
  
• Rendezvous astronauts with an asteroid by 2025
  
• Fly astronauts to (at least) orbit Mars by the 2030s

• Establish a heavy-lift rocket capable of enabling human flight beyond low Earth orbit

posted 06-12-2013 01:59 AM               

(If other countries want to take the lead in landing humans on the moon again, then it should be within NASA's budget to enter limited partnerships with them, offering our expertise in return for having U.S. astronauts join the trip.)

For the several decades that have passed since Apollo, the U.S. has been making the same mistake over and over: letting our desires outpace our budget when it has come time to planning our next steps in space. We have chosen the missions we want, rather than the missions we need and can afford.

We can, in theory, afford to move a small asteroid to where an Orion crew module can reach it by 2025.

Building off that mission, it might be possible to fly an upgraded Orion and perhaps BEAM-like inflatable module to a near-Earth asteroid as it crosses the Earth-moon system, moving us further out into space.

Neither of those missions require the development of a lander, nor a landing on the moon first.

The combined deep space experience and proof of upgraded and new technologies should at least provide the foundation for a trip to orbit Mars (whether the budget for such will exist in the mid-2020s is yet to be seen).

At present, we do not know how to land a crew on Mars. We've only just succeeded in getting a car-size mass to the surface (we'll get a second try at that with the 2020 lander). Experience with a moon lander won't help in that regard, due to (a) gravity, and more importantly, (b) the atmosphere.

But waiting for us in Mars orbit are two way stations that our (by then) experience with asteroids should help prepare us to work on and around: Phobos and Deimos. The moons of Mars are asteroids and built-in space stations.

From Phobos, we can control rovers on the surface of Mars in near-real time. That's important, because it can accelerate the work needed to survey the planet for dormant or even active biologicals. Unlike the moon, where the threat from lunar germs to Earth was quite low (and for which there was really no concern with terrestrial germs contaminating the moon), Mars is a different situation completely. We neither want to risk exposure either way on the Red Planet.

Phobos can be a research station for robotically-retrieved Martian samples, either to properly prepare them for the return to Earth or studied by scientists as members of the expedition crew. Meanwhile, living on Phobos offers the same lessons that Earth's moon would in learning to live in a hostile environment, setting us up for an eventual landing on Mars.

posted 06-12-2013 09:31 AM               

Most of your position is based on lack of funding, and you are correct. But I contend that if our politicians could work together (which appears to be more difficult than going to Mars) I am confident that alternatives could be developed, with one that could get us to the moon, and set us up for Mars, and possibly more.

I've been involved in many large projects (literally billions of dollars) where many of my colleagues claimed it could not be done, often for technical and/or financial reasons. But by following a well developed decision making process I've seen the un-doable accomplished.

First frame the opportunity, including a stakeholder analysis, a clear definition of success,and development of key project drivers (cost, reliability, schedule-what is most important). Then develop a complete list of alternatives, and then work each alternative to determine the best one before moving forward.

posted 06-12-2013 09:43 AM               

Even if Carl Sagan and Wernher von Braun were still alive, and they teamed up with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, I very much doubt they could convince Congress to increase the NASA budget by very much.

So rather than try to continue fighting that uphill battle in the hopes of a different outcome, I think the best course of action is to make lemonade. We may not be able to have the space program of everyone's dreams but we can send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit, doing things never done before.

posted 06-12-2013 11:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Yes, NASA has clear goals

---

quote:

---

Support research and science aboard the International Space Station through (at least) 2020

---

quote:

---

Rendezvous astronauts with an asteroid by 2025. Fly astronauts to (at least) orbit Mars by the 2030s.

---

posted 06-12-2013 11:52 AM               

I've always put out here that the moons of Mars are worthy goals, and that the lowered bar of the asteroid mission are wasteful of time and resources. Many of the points Robert makes here about near-Mars operations are detailed in Buzz Aldrin's latest book. Unfortunately Buzz doesn't have to find a way to fund all that he proposes, so it's fairly easy to call for the huge infrastructure he needs to accomplish it.

It seems the issue becomes how do we best prepare astronauts in the near term for working on the surface of a Martian moon in the ever more distant future? Both potential destinations are significantly larger than the small rock NASA currently wants to drag back home, probably a lot dustier, and certainly won't have a huge multi-million dollar trash bag wrapped around them when we get there.

We won't be spending an extended time living and working at the rock on EM-2, won't be living off the land, and won't be going into realistically deep space. And once the mission returns with a cache of samples, we will have no further use for our newly acquired gem.

It seems most of the current argument against a lunar mission is the expense of a lander. I would like to think that by the time EM-2 or -3 flies, U.S. industry would be more than capable of developing a lunar lander capability at an affordable price to market to the government. Just look at what is happening in commercial space right now. If Space-X, SNC, and Boeing can develop orbital spaceships and space planes, they certainly can build a lander. ISS is the current destination and driver for the market, and the moon could be the next.

Living on the surface of the moon (perhaps in a group of Bigelow inflatable modules) is a far better simulation of near-Mars operations than the "bag-a-rock" goal. There will be lessons learned from doing it that we cannot even imagine now.

But I think the most important difference is that a permanent presence on the moon is an on-going proposition. Like ISS, once it is established and productive, it will help spur U.S. and other partner countries' industry to develop improved capability to keep it operating. There are endless opportunities for exploration and exploitation there, and there may be an eventual return on investment.

So even with the recurring sine wave of support from Congress, this lunar base would continue on with the support of commercial industry and expand our presence in the solar system beyond LEO.

posted 06-12-2013 12:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
I don't see them as clear goals at all.

---

quote:

---

Uninspiring.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe either of these will happen by an American.

---

posted 06-12-2013 12:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
I'd rather submit that reality is what we make it.

---

This is a history-based site, so I am surprised sometimes at how often it seems to be forgotten. Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), VentureStar (X-33), Orbital Space Plane (OSP), Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) and Constellation were all underfunded attempts at trying to reshape reality. And they all failed because they were not realistic.

quote:

---

...and certainly won't have a huge multi-million dollar trash bag wrapped around them when we get there.

---

quote:

---

I would like to think that by the time EM-2 or -3 flies, U.S. industry would be more than capable of developing a lunar lander capability at an affordable price to market to the government.

---

quote:

---

ISS is the current destination and driver for the market, and the moon could be the next.

---

quote:

---

The greatest flaw of the asteroid capture goal is that there is no impetus for it to lead to the next goal.

---

quote:

---

...we might end up on the moon by 2025-2030, but we'll likely be met by others who had the foresight to go there first.

---

posted 06-12-2013 02:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Not that much has changed since Altair was shelved by the previous administration for being too expensive.

---

quote:

---

But if your goal is the Red Planet within our lifetimes, then the moon is a trap.

---

quote:

---

I would suggest that miring us on the moon has a greater chance of Congress walking away and never (in our lifetimes) reaching Mars, then politicians abandoning U.S. manned spaceflight after one asteroid mission.

---

I've suggested that a lunar base could become commercially self sufficient and employ numerous contracted transportation and habitation services to support it. With this setup, we will have a viable exploration program underway, a potential new industry of extracting resources (He-3, water, H+O= rocket fuel) from the moon, and be learning the lessons to go to a Martian moon.

quote:

---

I really don't understand this obsession with making everything into a race.

---

posted 06-12-2013 02:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Altair was shelved by the current administration along with Constellation.

---

quote:

---

I've suggested that a lunar base could become commercially self sufficient and employ numerous contracted transportation and habitation services to support it.

---

posted 06-12-2013 11:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If that's viable, and I hope it is, then industry should take the lead (as at least one company has suggested), build the hardware, deploy the lunar base and then sell its services back to the government. Unlike COTS/CCDev, that provides a critical infrastructure for NASA's established activities, the space agency does not need a lunar base to begin pushing out beyond low Earth orbit.

---

An argument I have made before is pretty simple: no ISS = no market = no commercial interest in developing a LEO capability. If government hadn't come along with the need and provided the seed money (albeit years too late to minimize the "gap") there would be no Dragon, no Dream Chaser, and no CST-100 programs. I've also made the point previously that if these entities were left to fund start-up space programs for themselves, it would never happen. I felt, like you do in this case Robert, that if they felt there was a market, they should risk their own capital, rather than the taxpayers', but we now find ourselves in an unfortunate orbital lurch.

Remember the movie Field of Dreams? The common theme throughout the film? If you build it, they will come. Following the argument that COTS/CCDev for ISS is the model for the future, then shouldn't government have a role in partnering with private industry to service lunar surface activities? I'm not saying that we should go to the moon simply for the sake of creating a commercial market, I'm just following others' logic that government can have a great impact on driving private enterprise toward success.

ISS is a government built cart without a horse, and government has invested in finding a new horse. A permanent lunar base could be a cart funded with government seed money followed by commercial infrastructure investment. This may well evolve into a separate profitable business servicing government funded advancement into deep space, and that potential will draw private enterprise to invest it's own capital.

All of this can be put to great use in an economically and technically feasible manner to move us toward the "next logical step" of setting up a base of operations on a Martian moon while maximizing the potential for successful work once we get there.

posted 06-13-2013 12:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...then decides to cut off it's transportation and resupply system, thereby creating a market for commercial entities to compete for contracts to fill that gap.

---

The decision to adopt a new acquisition strategy was partially born out of the correct realization that NASA's budget would not support the development of both a low Earth orbit taxi system and a vehicle architecture appropriate for exploration missions.

quote:

---

An argument I have made before is pretty simple: no ISS = no market = no commercial interest in developing a LEO capability.

---

For that matter, development of Dream Chaser as a commercial spacecraft dates back to before the International Space Station and SpaceX was founded a year before the loss of STS-107, before Elon Musk could even factor in the space station as part of his company's manned spaceflight plans.

quote:

---

...move us toward the "next logical step" of setting up a base of operations on a Martian moon while maximizing the potential for successful work once we get there.

---

posted 06-13-2013 12:25 AM               

I think we've spent enough years planning and replanning and planning again. I think we need to stop hoping for a Congress that will properly fund NASA and just get on with what we can do with the allocated funds.

posted 06-13-2013 06:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
We need to stop talking about what might be possible and just go do what is.

---

posted 06-13-2013 12:18 PM               

I think if we get the ball rolling, go somewhere and demonstrate that we can actually complete a mission, additional and more ambitious missions will follow, and so will the funding for such.

posted 08-29-2014 12:08 AM               

I just feel that the moon is a stepping stone that is in the middle of a river. Without a hop to that moon "stepping stone" we have too far to jump to reach the other side (Mars).

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for a trip to Mars, but we have to put our moon boots on first and take a "small step" one more time before the next "Giant Leap for mankind". Anyone else feel this way?

posted 08-29-2014 04:28 PM               

With the recent go-ahead for the SLS, there is a universal concern over the low flight rate. This produces an inadequately experienced launch team, drives the cost per launch to unreasonable levels, and gives opponents an opportune argument for its' cancellation. There is an alarming discussion happening now that it may become an extremely capable vehicle without a mission.

But this is a self-imposed problem. We created it when we changed the mission. The moon is the logical place to begin. I could go on for awhile about the exploration and exploitation potentials, but in the context of SLS, it provides a reasonable flight rate requirement and many other benefits. Launch teams stay current, launch costs are lower, and an infrastructure begins to be laid out on the lunar surface that can drive future commercial activities, perhaps even transferring operations entirely to private enterprise.

It's not cheap. It will cost more than some want to spend. It may not be the preferred way of moving beyond Earth that some want to follow. But if we have made the national commitment to build SLS, we owe it to ourselves to make the most of the investment. International and commercial partners could easily offset development costs for a lander and other equipment.

posted 08-29-2014 04:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
It's not cheap. It will cost more than some want to spend.

---

posted 08-29-2014 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I want to add here that I am not anti-moon...

---

posted 08-29-2014 07:54 PM               

At least two, if not three, independent research committees have now come to that conclusion. The answer is not going to change just because we really, really want to go to the moon.

I want to see us push forward out into space. I don't want to see us spend another 5 to 10 years debating and then half-implementing a plan to only see it canceled because, surprise, it is underfunded.

The moon is a great destination. It should be further explored. But it is not the solution to our currently budget-constrained space program.

For the record, we can't afford Mars right now either. But it appears we can afford an asteroid mission, and we can use the infrastructure built to support it to then justify the next step.

posted 08-30-2014 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Then you misunderstand me. It's not the destination that it is the problem. It is the almost blind eye turned to the fact that we cannot afford a lunar program under the budget currently provided to NASA.

---

posted 08-30-2014 09:36 AM               

A lander though, is not the only expense. There's also the spacesuit; the asteroid mission is using modified shuttle launch and entry suits that would be insufficient for the lunar surface.

Also, there's the cost of the launches themselves. A moon program requires a launch rate beyond what NASA's budget can support.

There's another cost involved: the cost of replanning. Any change of direction would almost certainly result in an independent research committee first being convened to study the change, and then having to restructure (yet again) NASA to support the new mission. All that carries a cost, too.

posted 08-30-2014 05:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZeroG:
I think going to the moon is the next logical step...

---

posted 09-01-2014 04:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As I understand it, ESA can barely afford the development work for Orion's service module, so I am not sure what resources Europe has left to contribute...

---

quote:

---

A lander though, is not the only expense. There's also the spacesuit... Also, there's the cost of the launches themselves. A moon program requires a launch rate beyond what NASA's budget can support... And note we haven't even talked about the cost for a rover, the cost for a base, the cost for communications, mission ops costs, and more.

---

posted 09-01-2014 04:37 PM               

As I've written before, the asteroid redirect mission is something we seem to be able to afford and fits within the schedule and logistical limitations that should be expected for an "Apollo 7" type mission for a new era of human space exploration.

posted 09-01-2014 10:38 PM               

But the main issue is that there is no logically expressed step between the ARM and Mars, which leads one to conclude that ARM is a one and done stunt, hardly worth the huge investment in SLS.

A sample return mission from an asteroid could be accomplished robotically at far less cost, if science were the real goal. On an EM-2 flight, there would be no return on investment in terms of equipment or spacesuit evaluation that would benefit a Mars mission because the requirements are very different.

So what happens in 2021 after the proposed ARM mission? A sudden increase in interest from the public and Congress to spend billions more to push out further? I would be skeptical. We may even run a real risk of getting a load of samples back no different from common meteorites that fall to Earth everyday. I can see the headlines now.

If there were an appropriate intermediate stop between the moon and Mars where representative vehicles and gear could be tested without the year-long commitment of a Mars transit, I'd say great, let's do it. But dragging a small asteroid back to our neighborhood to create a reasonable destination does nothing to advance our goals.

To an average person on the street, ISS is boring, if not non-existant. Yet the funding keeps coming. International commitments, commercial interests, pride and prestige all factor into this. The funding is rarely ideal, but nobody wants to "pull the plug." This same thing could happen with an international/ commercial lunar operation, and the technology required would be very similar to that required for work on Phobos or Deimos.

Politics aside, I think much of this conversation will be decided as SLS gets closer to reality. Having that incredible capability and not using it because of shortsighted thinking years before will tend to be self-correcting.

posted 09-02-2014 10:08 AM               

The point of ARM is to be a shakeout cruise for the Orion space capsule, just as Apollo 7's mission wasn't to orbit the Earth, but to test the redesigned Apollo command module.